Hansard Home Page: E-mail: Phone: (07) 3406 7314 Fax: (07 ...€¦ · Education ... Violence Against Police ... Debate on the dissent motion would at this juncture be extremely difficult

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSHansard Home Page: http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/hansard/

E-mail: [email protected]: (07) 3406 7314 Fax: (07) 3210 0182

FIRST SESSION OF THE FIFTY-THIRD PARLIAMENT Page

PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

Subject

Tuesday, 23 March 2010ASSENT TO BILLS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 921

Tabled paper: Letter, dated 12 March 2010, from Her Excellency the Governor to the Speaker advising of assent to a bill....................................................................................................................................................... 921Tabled paper: Letter, dated 17 March 2010, from Her Excellency the Governor to the Speaker advising of assent to bills........................................................................................................................................................ 921

REPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 922Auditor-General .................................................................................................................................................................... 922

Tabled paper: Auditor-General of Queensland—‘Report to Parliament No. 2 for 2010: Follow-up of selected audits tabled in 2007—A performance management systems audit’. ....................................................... 922

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT .............................................................................................................................................................. 922Sub Judice Rule, Dissent from Acting Speaker’s Ruling ...................................................................................................... 922

MOTION ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 922Withdrawal of Dissent from Acting Speaker’s Ruling ........................................................................................................... 922

PETITIONS ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 922TABLED PAPERS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 923SPEAKER’S STATEMENT .............................................................................................................................................................. 924

Visitors to Public Gallery ...................................................................................................................................................... 924MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS .......................................................................................................................................................... 924

Cyclone Ului ......................................................................................................................................................................... 924Irwin, Mr R ............................................................................................................................................................................ 925Population Growth ................................................................................................................................................................ 925

Tabled paper: Queensland Growth Management Summit—Background paper titled ‘Opportunities, challenges, choices’. ................................................................................................................................................ 926Tabled paper: Queensland Growth Management Summit 2010—‘Social research on population growth and liveability in South East Queensland’ March 2010. .......................................................................................... 926

Hancock Prospecting ........................................................................................................................................................... 926Health Services .................................................................................................................................................................... 927QRNational ........................................................................................................................................................................... 927Cyclone Ului, Ergon Energy ................................................................................................................................................. 928Cyclone Ului, School Closures ............................................................................................................................................. 929

J MICKEL N J LAURIE L J OSMONDSPEAKER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/hansard/

Table of Contents — Tuesday, 23 March 2010

Cyclone Ului, Primary Industries ...........................................................................................................................................930Cyclone Ului, Recovery Assistance ......................................................................................................................................930Cyclone Ului, Tourism Industry .............................................................................................................................................931Cyclone Ului, Maritime Safety ...............................................................................................................................................931Road Infrastructure ...............................................................................................................................................................932Cyclone Ului, Disaster Management .....................................................................................................................................932Indigenous Communities, Reporting .....................................................................................................................................933

Tabled paper: Quarterly report on key indicators in Queensland’s discrete Indigenous communities: October-December 2009...........................................................................................................................................933Tabled paper: Family Responsibilities Commission report to the Family Responsibilities Board and the Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships—Quarterly Report No. 6: October-December 2009. ...................................................................................................................933

Natural Disasters, Recovery Assistance ...............................................................................................................................933Carrara Stadium Upgrade .....................................................................................................................................................934Disability Services .................................................................................................................................................................934Electric Cars .........................................................................................................................................................................934

SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION COMMITTEE ..................................................................................................................................935Report ...................................................................................................................................................................................935

Tabled paper: Scrutiny of Legislation Committee Legislation Alert No. 4 of 2010. ...................................................935Tabled paper: Submission, dated 17 March 2010, from Mr Andrew Preston, barrister, regarding the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. .............................................................................935Tabled paper: Submission, dated 17 March 2010, from Surat Gladstone Pipeline and Arrow Energy Ltd regarding the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. ................................................935

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...............................................................................................................................................................935School Group Tours ..............................................................................................................................................................935

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE .....................................................................................................................................................935Sale of Public Assets ............................................................................................................................................................935Taxes and Charges ..............................................................................................................................................................936Primary Schools ....................................................................................................................................................................936Road User Charges ..............................................................................................................................................................937Airport Link, Jobs ..................................................................................................................................................................938Road User Charges ..............................................................................................................................................................938Health Services .....................................................................................................................................................................939Road User Charges ..............................................................................................................................................................939Green Jobs ...........................................................................................................................................................................940Sale of Public Assets ............................................................................................................................................................940Capital Works Projects ..........................................................................................................................................................941Cyclone Shelters ...................................................................................................................................................................942Drought Proofing ...................................................................................................................................................................942Blue Card ..............................................................................................................................................................................943Schools, Infrastructure ..........................................................................................................................................................943Kingaroy, Underground Coal Gasification Project ................................................................................................................944Surat Basin ...........................................................................................................................................................................944Crab Dillies ...........................................................................................................................................................................945

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST ..................................................................................................................................................945Sale of Public Assets ............................................................................................................................................................945Cyclone Ului ..........................................................................................................................................................................947Toowoomba Disability Services Centre ................................................................................................................................948Transport Planning ...............................................................................................................................................................948World Water Day ..................................................................................................................................................................949Office for Seniors ..................................................................................................................................................................950Carers ...................................................................................................................................................................................951Education ..............................................................................................................................................................................952Green and Healthy Queensland ...........................................................................................................................................953Kingaroy, Underground Coal Gasification Project ................................................................................................................954

Tabled paper: Documents including a copy of the United States Environmental Protection Agency report dated September 1999 titled ‘The Class V Underground Injection Control Study, Volume 13, In-situ Fossil Fuel Recovery Wells’ and a memorandum dated 1 March 2010 to Mrs Dorothy Pratt from Dr R Boothroyd regarding underground coal gasification. ........................................................................................954

Go Card ................................................................................................................................................................................954LAND TAX BILL ...............................................................................................................................................................................955

First Reading ........................................................................................................................................................................955Tabled paper: Land Tax Bill. .....................................................................................................................................955Tabled paper: Land Tax Bill, explanatory notes........................................................................................................955

Second Reading ...................................................................................................................................................................956

Table of Contents — Tuesday, 23 March 2010

REVENUE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ........................................................................................................ 956Second Reading ................................................................................................................................................................... 956Consideration in Detail ......................................................................................................................................................... 994

Clauses 1 to 79, as read, agreed to. ....................................................................................................................... 994Clause 80—.............................................................................................................................................................. 994Division: Question put—That clause 80 stand part of the bill. .................................................................................. 995Resolved in the affirmative. ...................................................................................................................................... 995Clause 80, as read, agreed to. ................................................................................................................................. 995Clause 81—.............................................................................................................................................................. 995Division: Question put—That clause 81 stand part of the bill. .................................................................................. 995Resolved in the affirmative. ...................................................................................................................................... 995Clause 81, as read, agreed to. ................................................................................................................................. 995Clauses 82 to 86, as read, agreed to. ...................................................................................................................... 995Clause 87, as read, agreed to. ................................................................................................................................. 996Clause 88, as read, agreed to. ................................................................................................................................. 997Clauses 89 to 118, as read, agreed to. .................................................................................................................... 997

Third Reading ....................................................................................................................................................................... 997Long Title .............................................................................................................................................................................. 997

NATURAL RESOURCES AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ................................................................................ 997Second Reading ................................................................................................................................................................... 997

ADJOURNMENT ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1017Violence Against Police ...................................................................................................................................................... 1017Blake, Mrs B ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1018Coomera Electorate, School Leaders ................................................................................................................................ 1018Aged Care .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1019Russell and Macleay Islands .............................................................................................................................................. 1019Gold Coast, Boating and Fisheries Patrol .......................................................................................................................... 1020Bald Hills, Crime Stoppers ................................................................................................................................................. 1021Savannah Guides ............................................................................................................................................................... 1021Burrum Heads .................................................................................................................................................................... 1022Carina Meals on Wheels .................................................................................................................................................... 1022

ATTENDANCE ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1023

23 Mar 2010 Legislative Assembly 921

TUESDAY, 23 MARCH 2010

Legislative Assembly

The Legislative Assembly met at 9.30 am.

Mr Speaker (Hon. John Mickel, Logan) read prayers and took the chair.

For the sitting week, Mr Speaker acknowledged the traditional owners of the land upon which thisparliament is assembled and the custodians of the sacred lands of our state.

ASSENT TO BILLSMr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have to report that I have received from Her Excellency

the Governor letters in respect of assent to certain bills, the contents of which will be incorporated in theRecord of Proceedings. I table the letters for the information of members.The Honourable R.J. Mickel, MPSpeaker of the Legislative AssemblyParliament HouseGeorge StreetBRISBANE QLD 4000

I hereby acquaint the Legislative Assembly that the following Bill, having been passed by the Legislative Assembly and havingbeen presented for the Royal Assent, was assented to in the name of Her Majesty The Queen on the date shown:

Date of Assent: 12 March 2010

“A Bill for An Act to amend the Valuation of Land Act 1944, the Land Court Act 2000 and the Water Act 2000 for particularpurposes”

This Bill is hereby transmitted to the Legislative Assembly, to be numbered and forwarded to the proper Officer for enrolment, inthe manner required by law.

Yours sincerely

Governor

12 March 2010

Tabled paper: Letter, dated 12 March 2010, from Her Excellency the Governor to the Speaker advising of assent to a bill [1904].

The Honourable R.J. Mickel, MPSpeaker of the Legislative AssemblyParliament HouseGeorge StreetBRISBANE QLD 4000

I hereby acquaint the Legislative Assembly that the following Bills, having been passed by the Legislative Assembly and havingbeen presented for the Royal Assent, were assented to in the name of Her Majesty The Queen on the date shown:

Date of Assent: 17 March 2010

“A Bill for An Act to amend the Civil Liability Act 2003, the Civil Liability Regulation 2003, the Law Reform Act 1995, theLimitation of Actions Act 1974, the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994, the Motor Accident Insurance Regulation 2004,the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 and the Personal Injuries Proceedings Regulation 2002 for particularpurposes”

“A Bill for An Act to amend the Agricultural College Act 2005 and the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1936 for particularpurposes”

“A Bill for An Act to amend the Radiation Safety Act 1999”

These Bills are hereby transmitted to the Legislative Assembly, to be numbered and forwarded to the proper Officer for enrolment,in the manner required by law.

Yours sincerely

Governor

17 March 2010

Tabled paper: Letter, dated 17 March 2010, from Her Excellency the Governor to the Speaker advising of assent to bills [1905].

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/docs/find.aspx?id=5310T1904




922 Petitions 23 Mar 2010

REPORT

Auditor-GeneralMr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have to report that I have received from the acting

Auditor-General a report titled Report to parliament No. 2 for 2010: Follow-up of selected audits tabled in2007—A performance management systems audit. I table the report for the information of allhonourable members.Tabled paper: Auditor-General of Queensland—‘Report to Parliament No. 2 for 2010: Follow-up of selected audits tabled in2007—A performance management systems audit’ [1906].

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

Sub Judice Rule, Dissent from Acting Speaker’s RulingMr SPEAKER: Standing order 233(2) provides that members should not refer in the House to

matters awaiting or under adjudication in all courts exercising a criminal jurisdiction, including inmotions, debate or questions, from the moment the charge is made against the relevant person. Thestanding order ceases to have effect when the verdict and sentence have been announced orjudgement given. The sub judice rule is always subject to the right of the House to consider and legislateon any matter.

As previous rulings have reinforced, the Speaker must be vigilant to uphold the current narrowerrule as it seeks to avoid interference in jury trials and the risk of mistrials. If possible, it is highlyrecommended to members that questions or statements that involve any reference to criminalproceedings be checked by members with the Clerk or the Speaker prior to delivery to ensure there isno infringement of the rule. This will avoid the chair having to make rulings on the run in difficultsituations and members having their questions or statements ruled out of order.

I am advised that on the last sitting day, a question asked by the honourable member for Clayfieldwas ruled out of order by the Acting Speaker on the grounds of sub judice. Notice of dissent to the rulinghas been given by the honourable member. The difficulty that has transpired since is that the trial thatwas on foot that led to the ruling did not reach a final conclusion and the criminal matter is, therefore, stillon foot.

Debate on the dissent motion would at this juncture be extremely difficult. Therefore, analternative course of action has been discussed. I have agreed to the honourable member for Clayfieldbeing at liberty to ask a slightly modified question, thereby alleviating any sub judice concerns. Themember has in turn agreed to seek the withdrawal of the notice of dissent.

Whilst the appeal against the Acting Speaker’s ruling is effectively being withdrawn, the recordwill show that the withdrawal occurred in the circumstances outlined in this statement. I trust that theHouse is agreeable to this sensible course of action. I thank all honourable members concerned for theircooperation in this matter.

MOTION

Withdrawal of Dissent from Acting Speaker’s RulingMr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—LNP) (9.35 am), by leave: I move—

That the notice of dissent standing in my name be withdrawn and discharged from the Notice Paper.

Question put—That the motion be agreed to.Motion agreed to. Mr SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member for Clayfield.

PETITIONSThe Clerk presented the following paper petitions, lodged by the honourable members indicated—

Abortion LawsMr McLindon, from 5,343 petitioners, requesting the House to legislate to provide adequate support for women and families,including pregnancy counselling services so as to reduce the demand for abortion; a ‘cooling off’ period after any abortion isdecided upon; application of the current law on abortion; a declaration that Article 3 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights coversunborn babies; and appropriate adoption, foster care services and other approaches to the care and support of unwanted babies[1907].




23 Mar 2010 Tabled Papers 923

Taxi IndustryMr Wellington, from 29 petitioners, requesting the House to pass legislation which prevents any taxi dispatch company fromrestricting any legitimate holder of a Queensland Transport issued authority to drive a taxi from accessing any taxi company’sdispatch system, without the permission of Queensland Transport [1908].

Mossman, Police ResourcesMr O’Brien, from 173 petitioners, requesting the House to improve the police accommodation in Mossman to allow for anincrease in police presence [1909].The Clerk presented the following e-petition, sponsored by the honourable members indicated—

Identification Electronic Voting SystemMr Horan, from 309 petitioners, requesting the House to provide the necessary funding and recommendation to the QueenslandElectoral Commission to implement an Identification Electronic Voting System at polling booths, commencing at the next Stateelection [1910]. Petitions received.

TABLED PAPERSPAPERS TABLED DURING THE RECESS

The Clerk informed the House that the following papers, received during the recess, were tabled on the dates indicated—

12 March 2010—

1897 Response from the Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Rural and Regional Queensland (Mr Mulherin) to anePetition (1271-09) sponsored by Mr Knuth from 879 petitioners requesting the House to remove existing prohibitions andallow the keeping of domestic rabbits, with appropriate controls and restrictions, as is the case elsewhere in theCommonwealth

1898 Response from the Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships (Ms Boyle) to apaper petition (1370-10) presented by Mr Messenger from 293 petitioners requesting the House to use legislative andregulative powers to overturn Bundaberg Regional Council’s decision to build a skate bowl at the Innes Park Reserve

1899 Response from the Minister for Education and Training (Mr Wilson) to a paper petition (1377-10) presented by MrMessenger from 215 petitioners requesting the House to establish a public state secondary school in Agnes Water

1900 ANZ Trustees Limited and its Controlled Entity—General Purpose Financial Report for the year ended 30 September2009

16 March 2010—

1901 Gold Coast Hospital Foundation—Annual Report 2008-09

1902 Gold Coast Hospital Foundation—Annual Report 2008-09: Late tabling statement by the Deputy Premier and Minister forHealth (Mr Lucas)

18 March 2010—

1903 Law, Justice and Safety Committee: Report No. 74—Inquiry into Alcohol-Related Violence—Final report, March 2010

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

The following statutory instruments were tabled by the Clerk—

Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000—

1911 Domestic Building Contracts Regulation 2010, No. 33

Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991—

1912 Queensland Building Services Authority Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2010, No. 34

Fisheries Act 1994, Marine Parks Act 2004, Sustainable Planning Act 2009—

1913 Fisheries and Other Legislation Amendment and Repeal Regulation (No. 1) 2010, No. 35

Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995—

1914 Transport Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2010, No. 36

Juvenile Justice and Other Acts Amendment Act 2009—

1915 Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 37

Electrical Safety Act 2002—

1916 Electrical Safety (Installation of Ceiling Insulation) Notice 2010, No. 38

Disaster Management Act 2003—

1917 Disaster Management (Extension of Disaster Situation-Roma) Regulation 2010, No. 39

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994—

1918 Motor Accident Insurance Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2010, No. 40





























924 Ministerial Statements 23 Mar 2010

Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995—

1919 Traffic Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2010, No. 41

Land Sales Act 1984—

1920 Land Sales Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2010, No. 42

Disaster Management Act 2003—

1921 Disaster Management (Further Extension of Disaster Situation-Roma) Regulation 2010, No. 43

Rural and Regional Adjustment Act 1994—

1922 Rural and Regional Adjustment Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2010, No. 44

Nature Conservation Act 1992—

1923 Nature Conservation (Protected Plants Harvest Period) Notice 2010, No. 45

REPORT TABLED BY THE CLERK

The following report was tabled by the Clerk—

1924 Report pursuant to Standing Order 158 (Clerical errors or formal changes to any bill) detailing amendments to certain Bills,made by the Clerk, prior to assent by Her Excellency the Governor, viz—

Civil Liability and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009Amendments made to Bill

Short title and consequential references to short title—Omit—

’Civil Liability and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2009’

Insert—

’Civil Liability and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2010’.

Radiation Safety Amendment Bill 2009Amendments made to Bill

Short title and consequential references to short title—Omit—

’Radiation Safety Amendment Act 2009’

Insert—

’Radiation Safety Amendment Act 2010’.


Visitors to Public GalleryMr SPEAKER: Honourable members, this morning we have as our guest in the gallery the Hon.

Martin Whitely MLA, member for Bassendean from the Western Australian parliament. He will be in thegallery until 10 am. Also visiting this morning will be a group of 20 residents from the Living Choiceretirement villas in the electorate of Kawana.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Cyclone UluiHon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.36 am): Barely

three months into 2010 and people all around Queensland have had their fair share of disasters. AsSouth-West Queensland continues the clean-up after this month’s devastating floods, in the early hoursof Sunday morning Tropical Cyclone Ului unleashed its fury on the people of North Queensland. Thiscategory 3 cyclone crossed the coast at Airlie Beach. The Mackay and Whitsunday region felt the fullforce of the cyclone as it crossed the coast around 1.30 in the morning. The member for Whitsundayhas talked about what a terrifying experience it was for her and for many other people in the region.

While the extent of the damage bill from Cyclone Ului is not yet known, we can be very relievedand thankful that no-one was seriously injured or killed and that while we have seen some very seriousdamage it has not been of the catastrophic nature we have seen with other cyclones. I visited some ofthe hardest hit areas in Mackay and Proserpine on Sunday, along with the Minister for EmergencyServices. While there I saw firsthand not only the damage that this cyclone caused but also theresilience and positive spirit of our northern cousins.







23 Mar 2010 Ministerial Statements 925

Our thoughts are with those who have lost their homes, their treasured possessions and, in somecases, their livelihoods. Ului’s strong winds uprooted trees and downed powerlines, leaving more than60,000 homes and businesses blacked out. I am pleased to inform the House that, as of this morning,power had been restored to more than 40,000 of these homes and businesses. Ergon hopes to havethe remainder reconnected as close to this evening as it possibly can. More than 280 Ergon workershave been working around the clock, in many cases in extremely bad weather, to get that power backon. While they are making every effort and they hope to have the bulk of this behind them by the end ofthe day, they are encountering very difficult circumstances, including getting into some places that areflooded and places that are difficult to get into due to the number of trees that have been brought down.

I would like to thank those workers for their efforts. I would also like to say a special thankyou toour hardworking SES volunteers and our Emergency Services workers. I want to pay tribute to both theMackay and Whitsunday regional councils for their tremendous efforts. They were well prepared andthey were well organised. That made the difference on the night and during the recovery effort.

Due to the floods and now Cyclone Ului, around 80 per cent of the state is under natural disasterrelief and recovery arrangements. It is not that long ago that roughly that percentage was under droughtdeclaration.

Mr Springborg: Some still are.Ms BLIGH: I take the interjection. The member is right; of course some are still experiencing

drought, but I think it is a measure of how quickly things have turned around for some regions. They arenow eligible for natural disaster relief and recovery arrangements which will help those individuals andfamilies who do not have the capacity to meet their immediate unexpected basic costs for food, clothing,medical supplies or accommodation caused by the disaster. Other means tested assistance may beavailable in some circumstances to help people with essential household contents or structural damagewhere they have been uninsured.

Yesterday I announced that the Premier’s Disaster Relief Appeal for flood affected South-WestQueensland had been extended to include people doing it tough in North Queensland. I was verypleased yesterday to note that the federal government announced it would match the Queenslandgovernment and contribute half a million dollars to the appeal. That takes the appeal to over$1.2 million, but more money is needed and I would encourage Queenslanders to dig deep.

I want to assure anyone who has made plans to travel to the Whitsunday region over the Easterbreak that the clean-up is well underway. Tourism is the lifeblood of this region and tourism operatorsare confident that the hotels and resorts will be up and running again by the long weekend. So for thosewho have planned a trip to this very beautiful part of our state, do not cancel your booking. You will stillget the amazing holiday that you have planned.

I also note that both I and the Minister for Primary Industries have been in regular personalcontact with cane growers in the region. There is a lot of cane flattened, but until every farmer has hadan opportunity to get out into every field it is not possible at this stage to determine the extent of damageto that crop. However, we will be working with the industry, which is another important part of the localeconomy, to ensure that we can provide assistance where possible.

Irwin, Mr RHon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.41 am): I was

shaken by the news this morning that Australia Zoo founder Bob Irwin suffered a very serious heartattack at the weekend. He was airlifted by the Royal Flying Doctor Service to Brisbane’s privatespecialist cardiac hospital, Holy Spirit Northside, from his home at Kingaroy on Sunday.

Bob was a conservationist before most people knew what that word meant and, like his late sonSteve, he is a great Queenslander. Bob is also as tough as nails, and I can personally attest to thatbecause I have been lobbied by him on a number of occasions. I hope that his strength will pull himthrough this challenge. I speak for everyone on all sides of the House when I wish him a very speedyrecovery.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

Population GrowthHon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.42 am): Yesterday

I released a new report from my department commissioned in the run-up to the Queensland GrowthManagement Summit on 30 and 31 March. The Social research on population growth and liveability inSouth East Queensland report shows that Queenslanders’ views are split down the middle onpopulation growth. When asked to grade on a scale of 100 whether growth was terrible for SEQ, whichis at zero, or great for SEQ, which is at 100, respondents recorded an average rating of 47.4. What thisclearly shows is that South-East Queenslanders are polarised on the issue and there is a need for agenuine debate. That is why we decided to hold the Queensland Growth Management Summit. As a


community we are at a point where we need to make choices about how we manage the growth that weare experiencing. These results clearly show that South-East Queensland residents have mixed viewsabout population growth, but we need to reach more of a community consensus if we are to find the rightway forward.

The report shows that more than nine in 10—some 92 per cent—SEQ residents rate their qualityof life positively and that that quality of life rating increases the longer they have lived here. A quarter ofall respondents cited increased work opportunities and a wider skills base as the most obvious positiveeffect of growth, and 23 per cent said that it was better for the local economy. When asked about thenegative effects of growth, four per cent of respondents said they had no concerns about populationgrowth but 31 per cent cited greater congestion and inadequate roads as their major concern.

The results of the report highlight some of the major issues in managing growth in Queensland,with respondents sometimes reporting contradictory views. Across-the-board, at least three-quarters ofrespondents said they wanted to preserve green space, which will mean higher density in some areas.On the other hand, 69 per cent said that they wanted to live in lower density housing, which of coursewould require more greenfield development in that green space.

The Queensland Growth Management Summit is a chance for us to listen to the community’sviews. What we need to do is make choices about how we manage that growth better so our childrencan enjoy the Queensland lifestyle that we obviously enjoy. I alert the House to the fact that the reportand the background paper for the summit are available at the Queensland government website, and Itable copies of both of those for the benefit of the House. Tabled paper: Queensland Growth Management Summit—Background paper titled ‘Opportunities, challenges, choices’ [1925].Tabled paper: Queensland Growth Management Summit 2010—‘Social research on population growth and liveability in SouthEast Queensland’ March 2010 [1926].

Hancock ProspectingHon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.44 am): Today

marks the beginning of a new era in Queensland’s resources sector with the opening of a head office inBrisbane by one of the country’s largest mining companies. Hancock Prospecting’s chair, Gina Rinehart,will open her Brisbane office in Queen Street today. This means jobs for Queenslanders along with thevery real prospect of one of the most significant mining developments in the state’s history. HancockProspecting’s two impending projects in Queensland will, if they receive all statutory and environmentalapprovals, create the biggest thermal coalmine complex in Australia with annual exports at fullproduction of some 60 million tonnes of good-quality, low-ash, low-gas and low-sulphur coal.Additionally, the company is set to undertake a massive infrastructure project to build a Galilee Basin railcorridor from Alpha and Kevin’s Corner to Abbot Point Coal Terminal. This is a 500-kilometre rail projectwith the potential to create hundreds of jobs and inject billions into the Queensland economy.

The opening of the Brisbane headquarters today means the company has a presence in Brisbaneto oversee a bankable feasibility study for the rail line. This study alone stands to inject $100 million intothe Queensland economy and employ up to 400 people as it is carried out over the next 12 months.These 400 jobs for contractors and consultants are in addition to the 30 people who have already beenemployed in Hancock Prospecting’s office. These are the kinds of projects which our government isworking hard to attract to Queensland as we claw our way back from the effects of the global financialcrisis.

As members know, I met with Mrs Rinehart shortly before Christmas last year and I know that sheis extremely keen to get this project moving. That is why her company has moved so quickly over theensuing three months this year to get staff in place, along with those consultants and contractors whoare on the ground. The Deputy Premier along with other relevant ministers also joined Mrs Rinehart inthat time before Christmas at a very well-publicised dinner. My government and my ministers willcontinue to meet with people like Mrs Rinehart who want to invest in our state and create jobs.

We are determined that we investigate projects and significant investment of this kind to makeQueensland even stronger. Into the future, should this project stack up, Hancock Prospecting will havetwo major world-class coalmine operations which will employ thousands of workers for its 30-year-plusmine life. It will provide approximately $15 billion of expenditure during construction and it will earn over$5 billion each year in export revenue for Australia. In addition, about $450 million every year will bereturned to the people of Queensland in royalties, and that is one of the largest resource companyroyalties ever in this state’s history.

I know that all members will be aware of the huge presence that Hancock mining has in WesternAustralia and I know that this company is determined to emulate that presence here in Queensland. If allgoes well and all approvals are received in a timely fashion, coal production will commence late in 2013.In the meantime, massive infrastructure will be put in place. This is good news for our economy. It isgreat news for jobs and great news for Queensland’s international reputation as a resourcespowerhouse. But it is also great for regional Queensland. This is an opportunity for further growth andprosperity in some of our major regional towns and cities, and that is good for the families who live there.




Health Services

Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for Health) (9.48 am): There isabsolutely no doubt that demand for health services is growing. In 2003-04 Queensland Health providedaround 8.8 million occasions of service. In just five years this figure has skyrocketed to 10.8 million,equating to a 22 per cent increase. Over the same period, the cumulative population growth rate was13 per cent. It is clear that Queensland Health is growing our services at a rate far outstrippingpopulation growth.

As our population grows and ages, demand for health services also grows, and this meansemploying more people to deliver these services. Since 2005 we have employed an extra 12,500doctors, nurses and allied health professionals. What is more, we are planning for future growth. Our$6 billion health infrastructure program is expanding our hospital capacity by building and rebuildinghospitals from the Torres to the Tweed. Put simply, we are employing more people and building morehealth infrastructure under the Bligh government than any other government before us.

The Bligh government has made tough choices to weather the fallout from the global financialcrisis. Our $6 billion hospital building program—the largest ever undertaken in Australia—will deliver40,000 local Queensland jobs over the life of the projects alone. That is, for example, nearly 2,600construction jobs in Cairns, more than 2,000 in Townsville, nearly 2,400 in Mackay, more than 670 inRockhampton, more than 9,800 at the Gold Coast University Hospital and more than 7,000 at theQueensland Children’s Hospital. Last year, the AMA called for 3,750 extra beds across Australia. TheQueensland government’s massive hospital building program will deliver more than 1,700 additionalbeds in Queensland alone.

But improving care is also about better services, new technology and new models of care thatimprove the standards of care delivered to patients. That is why we are not only opening more beds butalso expanding in a sustainable way regional services, such as providing a new cardiac catheter lab andcancer centre in Cairns, expanded neonatal intensive care in Townsville, expanded dialysis in Mackay,medical resonance imaging in Rockhampton and cancer services at the Gold Coast.

As demand grows for services so, too, will it grow for people who provide these services,particularly in our growing regions. Twelve months ago the Bligh government gave a commitment to theelectorate that it would protect Queensland jobs and continue to tackle growth and demand in the faceof an unprecedented global financial crisis. We also committed to employing an extra 3,500 clinical staffover three years to meet growing demand. I am pleased to inform the House today that we are not onlydelivering on this commitment, we are well on the way to exceeding it. Since the end of March 2009, wehave employed an extra 2,099 doctors, nurses and allied health staff. That is nearly two-thirds of ourcommitment in a third of the time. That means an extra 2,099 clinical staff on the ground treating moreQueensland patients closer to home. For example, Cairns has increased staffing levels from 2,150 inFebruary 2009 to 2,252 staff in February this year. That includes an 11.8 per cent increase in medicalstaff—from 250 to 270 in just one year and an increase in nursing staff from 1,119 in February 2009 to1,145 currently.

In Mackay, we have seen a 6.45 per cent increase—from 1,038 staff in March 2009 to 1,105 staffin February this year. In just medical staff alone, that is an increase from 121 in March 2009 to 132 inFebruary this year and an increase in nursing staff from 496 in March 2009 to 536 currently. InBundaberg, we have employed an extra 93 staff in just 12 months, including a 23.19 per cent increasein medical staff from 84 in March 2009 to 101 in February this year and an increase in nursing staff from443 in February 2009 to 498 currently.

There is no doubt that Queensland hospitals have played their part in securing jobs forQueenslanders and building a workforce to meet and plan for future growth. We are committed toensuring that our state is well placed to meet growing demand. In light of the federal government’sreform agenda, we are committed to ensuring that all Queenslanders can continue to access free healthcare when and where they need it.

QRNational

Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer and Minister for Employment andEconomic Development) (9.52 am): I also join with the Premier in sending my best wishes to my hometown of Proserpine, which faced the cyclone on the weekend. The people of Proserpine have largelytaken the cyclone in their stride and I know that it did not disrupt many of the things that were plannedover the weekend. A certain engagement party was able to proceed on Saturday night. I send my bestwishes to my cousin, Kristy, and her fiancee, Mick, who celebrated on Saturday night. I am sure theopposition joins me in wishing the couple a long and happy future together. Those opposite are not thatmean-spirited.


With Queensland’s coal exports expected to double by 2030, now is the time to position ourexport infrastructure to grow. Competition and demand are growing and that is why we needQueensland Rail fit for the fight and able to grow. That is why we have settled on a new structure forQRNational to give it both the incentive and the balance sheet to expand the network. This point hasbeen endorsed today by former ACCC chairman Professor Allan Fels in this morning’s quality press.The government welcomes the debate. It is a debate about future prosperity and it is one that wewelcome.

As the hunger for our resources grow, so will the new QRNational and that means more jobs, notfewer. Today I can announce that QR is calling for workers in the Mackay, Bowen and Townsville regionsto help fill the 800 jobs that are needed to deliver the Northern Missing Link Project. That is 800 newjobs for a project that is critical to the state’s coal supply chain on top of the 600 job vacancies acrossQR that the Premier announced last week.

To the nay-sayers who cast doubt over QRNational’s future, here are 1,400 reasons this companyis only going to get bigger and better. The 69-kilometre Northern Missing Link Project will connect theGoonyella coal rail system to the Newlands rail system. It will increase rail capacity, enabling QR’scustomers with mines along the Newlands and Goonyella rail systems to export up to 50 million tonnesof coal per annum via the Abbot Point Coal Terminal. This project is great for the coal industry, great forQR and also great for the local communities. It will deliver employment and business opportunities inregional Queensland and also inject money into local economies.

To deliver this project by early 2012, QR needs workers with a wide variety of skills—ranging fromlabourers, concreters, surveyors and plant operators to engineering and administrative staff. It isestimated that, in addition to those roles directly involved in delivering the project, approximately 2,750local jobs will be supported in industries such as hospitality, manufacturing and equipment and materialsupplies. I expect that there will be great interest in participating in this project. Locals in Bowen andMackay can attend information sessions tomorrow evening and Thursday evening and should check theQR website for more information.

The government is presently putting together a new board to take QRNational to the internationalmarketplace as well as putting together a new Queensland Rail board that is focused on the passengernetwork in particular. I take this opportunity to recognise the contribution of one of the directors of QRLtd who has advised of his intention to leave the board to pursue new opportunities. Peter Holmes aCourt became a director of QR Ltd back in 2006 and was reappointed to the position in September lastyear. In his time on the board of QR Ltd, Peter has brought a unique depth of both national andinternational experience to the position. Together with chairman John Prescott and the other boardmembers, Peter has contributed to the positioning of QR as Australia’s leading transport and logisticscompany. As he has sought to help transform the fortunes of the Rabbitohs in Sydney, Peter has beenequally a key player in the agenda for the transformation of QR.

Mr Holmes a Court has been part of the team that has been focused on delivering the new QRinto this decade—a QR that is committed to safety, customer service, commercial capability and growth.The fact is that the outlook for QR is strong and Mr Holmes a Court can leave the board knowing that weare heading towards exciting times and in very good shape. As a result, we are expecting a very positiveoutcome for both the new Queensland Rail in July and, soon after that, for QRNational. I know thatMr Holmes a Court is a strong supporter of the sale and the vertically integrated model for QRNational.Mr Holmes a Court has had to relinquish this position and positions on a number of other boards as heprepares to take on a new venture in New South Wales. On behalf of the government, I thank Peter forhis contributions in helping drive this great company forward.

Cyclone Ului, Ergon Energy

Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy andMinister for Trade) (9.56 am): Ergon Energy crews are working around the clock repairing powerlinesand restoring power to households and businesses in North Queensland. Around 280 Ergon Energyworkers are hard at work out in the field battling bad weather to bring power supplies back on. They willbe joined today by around 30 Energex workers who are ready to swing into action. A number of Energexgenerators are also being sent to cyclone damaged regions.

Around 60,000 homes and businesses lost power when the cyclone crossed the coast. I amadvised that, as of this morning, around 20,000 customers are still without power. Ergon expects to havepower restored to the majority of households and businesses later today. Ergon crews have put in amighty effort. They have battled bad weather and heavy rain to get the job done. Some crews have evenbeen stranded by floodwaters. But they are out and about right now doing what they do best. It is not anine to five job; it can be hazardous and for that we owe them our thanks.


It is worth noting that the damage to the network was not confined to overhead powerlines. Anumber of households and businesses in the Airlie Beach business precinct with undergroundpowerlines also lost supply. Overhead lines feed the power underground and if there is a violent stormor cyclone and trees fall on those overhead feeder lines, everyone is in the same boat whether theirsupply is underground or above ground.

Mr Seeney: Same tired, old defensive argument every time.

Mr Fraser: It’s the same press release you’ve put out.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Both sides of the House.

Mr ROBERTSON: I note that the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Callide have onceagain called for all powerlines to be underground.

Mr Seeney: Ten years.

Mr ROBERTSON: The latest departmental estimates—and I take the interjection because I amabout to say six years but he is right; it has been 10 years since he has been banging on about this—putthe cost of undergrounding powerlines across one of the largest electricity networks in the world at morethan $56 billion. Just in case the member for Callide did not hear it I will say it again: $56 billion.

In his press release this morning the Leader of the Opposition said he has been on about this forsix years. The member for Callide has been on about it for 10 years. The opposition has had 10 years totell us how it will fund that $56 billion bill to underground power lines throughout Queensland. Over that10-year period we have had four elections and on each of those occasions the opposition has squibbedon that most fundamental question of all: where will the money come from? Will they slash theEducation budget, the Health budget or the roads budget, or will they increase electricity bills? Whatwould be the cost of $56 billion to every man, woman and child in Queensland? It would be about$14,000. That is the impact on average Queenslanders that the crazy plan of those opposite tounderground power lines right throughout Queensland would have. The craziness of their idea wouldslug mums and dads throughout this state with $14,000 on their electricity bills. If I am wrong, I askthose opposite to tell me. I ask them to come up with the costings. What the member for Callide hasnever said is how they will pay for it. I invite him to do so today. When he gets up in front of the medialater today and bangs on about this, I invite him to tell Queenslanders for the first time how he will payfor it. This is just one big, fat, large tax imposed by an opposition that has no fresh ideas and nothing tooffer the people of Queensland.

Cyclone Ului, School Closures

Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Education and Training) (10.01 am): I knowthat the thoughts of all Queenslanders are with those facing a huge clean-up after the destructioncaused by Cyclone Ului this weekend. The residents of the Mackay-Whitsunday region are getting onwith the job and it is clear that they are showing the true Queensland spirit. There were 19 state schoolsand three Catholic schools that were closed on Monday. Today that figure is down to 10. Most havereported damage to facilities, fallen trees, debris and the loss of power and essential services such assewerage and water supply. These schools are not currently safe for students and staff to occupy andwill remain closed until they can be made safe. School principals in the cyclone affected areas areworking closely with their communities and local disaster management groups. The state school andCatholic school sectors are working very closely together in the region.

I take this opportunity to thank all of those dedicated workers who are currently on the grounddoing everything possible to get these schools back into a usable condition. A special thanks must go tothe principals, teachers and staff for their hard work and perseverance in getting schools back to normalas quickly as possible. It is a remarkable feat. Many staff members are also facing a massive clean-upat their own homes. That they are at the schools lending a helping hand is a measure of theirextraordinary commitment, and for that I thank them.

I know that local communities will be deeply affected by the disaster. That is why support servicesfor students and staff have been made available through school guidance officers and employeeassistance advisers. We are hoping to have schools re-open as quickly as possible over the comingweek, but it may take some time. We urge parents to continue to monitor radio reports about the statusof schools. Concerned parents can also contact their local principal or education district office forupdated information about access to their children’s school and classroom arrangements. I know that,with the fantastic community spirit we are seeing from locals, the region will come through this ordealwith an even stronger community.


Cyclone Ului, Primary Industries

Hon. TS MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Rural andRegional Queensland) (10.03 am): The damaging effects and crop losses resulting from Cyclone Uluiwill not be fully realised for months. As the local member for Mackay, I witnessed firsthand the extent ofthe damage. I have also contacted industry leaders and stakeholders in the impacted area. Cyclone Uluicaused damage to sugarcane crops in the Mackay and Proserpine region. Although it is too early topredict the level of damage to the sugarcane crop, it is hoped that much of the damaged cane that hasbeen blown over in the Mackay-Whitsunday region will recover if the rain stops. However, there will besome impact on productivity with lower tonnages and lower c.c.s. levels.

In the Proserpine region it is estimated that 10 to 20 per cent of the total sugarcane crop may belost. With lodged cane and the possibility of trees or debris in the crop, harvesting will also be affectedbecause this will slow down the rate of harvest. The industry has considerable resilience and, althoughthe losses will be sharply felt while the international sugar prices are high, most growers are thankfulthat the destruction was not more severe.

Local seafood retailers have warned that there may be fresh seafood shortages at Easter.However, the impacts to the fishing industry will not be known until fishing resumes. Fruit and vegetablegrowers in the Bowen region say that, although it is early days, it appears that the damage to the fruitand vegetable crop could have been much worse. Many growers have not yet planted seedlings,including growers of tomatoes, rockmelons, pumpkins and cucumbers. At the moment there are noproblems getting produce to market. However, this may change if the rain continues.

DEEDI officers in Bowen and Mackay are currently assessing crop losses, crop damage and farminfrastructure damage across the impacted area. The Bligh government will work with primary producersand small businesses affected across the region and provide assistance to help them get back on theirfeet. We hope to have an accurate estimate of crop losses later this week.

Cyclone Ului, Recovery Assistance

Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Information andCommunication Technology) (10.06 am): Following the devastation wrought by Cyclone Ului in NorthQueensland, staff from the building arm of the Department of Public Works, QBuild, have been quick toassist local authorities. Under the Queensland Disaster Management Plan, the Department of PublicWorks provides the key functional support roles of building and engineering services, emergency supplyand communications.

Before the cyclone struck, QBuild had already been active with the establishment of its regionaldisaster coordination centre and the securing of loose items on all of its construction sites. A total of 24personnel, including six administrative staff, reported within six hours of the cyclone passing. QBuildassessment teams were deployed across the region with an emphasis on ascertaining damage to statebuilding infrastructure such as schools. As of yesterday, 19 schools throughout the impacted regionwere closed. The closures were primarily due to safety concerns arising from vegetation damagethroughout the school grounds or, in the case of smaller remote schools, a lack of power to operatesewage treatment equipment. The Minister for Education brought us up to date in his ministerialstatement in relation to that.

As of yesterday, 30 QBuild personnel were engaged in recovery operations. In addition, there are18 contract personnel working on behalf of QBuild. Due to the large amount of tree damage, QBuild hasengaged six specialist arborist teams from Townsville and Rockhampton to expedite clean-upoperations at all affected state school sites. QBuild will also be deploying an additional 10 chainsawqualified personnel from across its South-East Queensland based regional offices with equipment fromBrisbane.

QBuild is managing the impact on government agencies and their respective tenants byprioritising the completion of damage assessments and a staged commencement of repairs, including topublic housing. A number of other Public Works service areas are on standby to assist the recoveryfrom the cyclone event including QFleet for the supply of vehicles, SDS for the supply of materials andProject Services for assistance with any structural engineering reports.

Those who live in North Queensland whose homes, schools, hospitals and services havesuffered at the hands of Cyclone Ului can rest assured that they are in very safe hands with theDepartment of Public Works and QBuild. Again the capacity of this government to retain a highlyqualified workforce has been demonstrated.


Cyclone Ului, Tourism Industry

Hon. PJ LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading) (10.08 am): Asevery Queenslander knows, and as the Premier and every minister has mentioned, the Whitsundayswas hit over the weekend by Tropical Cyclone Ului. The state government is currently working withTourism Queensland and the local tourism industry to assess the damage. Tourism Queensland is alsodeveloping a response plan to help mitigate the effects on the tourism industry. I have spoken with PeterO’Reilly, the CEO of Tourism Whitsundays, and also my parliamentary colleague the member forWhitsunday, Jan Jarratt. The initial feedback from our on-the-ground representatives is that tourists andresidents currently in the region are safe and well. Although the impact has resulted in power failures,flooding and some structural damage, reports indicate the region has escaped comparatively well.

Understandably, tourism operators have been battered and currently are in the initial stages ofclean-up and repair. This will be tough for the industry, particularly on top of a difficult 12 months.However, it is expected that the recovery efforts will be relatively quick and the region will return tobusiness as usual in the short term.

Therefore, at the moment our focus is on making sure that the disruption to tourism businesses isnot significant and that we ensure potential holidaymakers have the right perception about the effects ofCyclone Ului. We want to ensure continued consumer confidence in Queensland as a holidaydestination and encourage tourists to continue with their holiday plans and return when they are able. Iwould like to assure anyone planning a trip to the region during the coming days and weeks, especiallyover the Easter period which is just around the corner, that we are doing everything possible to returnthe landscape, the beautiful beaches, tourism activities and experiences to normal as quickly aspossible.

I also want to assure the Queensland tourism industry that Tourism Queensland is moving quicklyto develop a recovery plan and has begun working with industry to pull together coordinated marketingand publicity activity, using existing relationships with media, industry and airline partners to relay keymessages in the lead-up to the crucial Easter holiday period. Once the region has been cleared andpower has been restored—as indicated by the Premier, probably that will be today—the aim of thisactivity will be to tell Australia and the world that Queensland is well and truly open for business.

Cyclone Ului, Maritime Safety

Hon. RG NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (Minister for Transport) (10.11 am): I, too, would like to updatethe parliament on the post cyclone recovery effort at Airlie Beach. Airlie Beach and the Whitsundayislands were battered when Tropical Cyclone Ului crossed the Queensland coast early on Sunday. Aswell as the damage to houses, which has been spoken about, the destructive winds and large swellshave caused havoc and serious damage to many vessels in the area. Approximately 60 vessels havebroken their moorings and been set ashore onto the rocks or grounded on the foreshore. The worstaffected area is Shute Harbour where some 30 vessels were driven ashore by the cyclone. Therecovery process is underway but will take some time to complete.

Maritime Safety Queensland has been working with vessel owners and operators to assist withthe identification and location of stranded vessels. Shortly a specialist team of surveyors will be on theirway from Brisbane to assist with finding sunken vessels or obstructions that may pose a hazard tonavigation and to ensure that navigation channels are clear of obstructions. The surveyors usesophisticated side-scan sonar to identify objects on the sea floor.

Thankfully, there are few reports of vessel source marine pollution and I am advised that theamount of fuel spilled is very small. I am also advised that the wind and sea conditions will act to quicklydissipate any minor diesel spills. I expect that insurance companies will work with the insured vesselowners to salvage and repair damaged vessels as quickly as possible. All mariners are reminded to beparticularly cautious over the coming weeks because, following the cyclone, there may be sunkendebris adrift in the rivers and offshore. A notice to mariners warning of the dangers has been issued byMaritime Safety Queensland.

I acknowledge and thank the vast numbers of emergency management personnel who haveassisted in the response and recovery. Whilst a number of ports were closed before the cyclone hit, I ampleased to say that all ports are now open for business. At one of those ports, Hay Point, staff werestuck in their building after fallen trees blocked the access road to the vessel traffic service centre. Thecentre lost power, but generators kicked in and staff continued monitoring safety at the port. Once thecyclone passed, the ever-resilient staff removed the trees in order to open the road once more.Queensland’s mariners and public servants are a hardy breed, and I am sure all those working togetherin North Queensland will recover.


Road InfrastructureHon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Main Roads) (10.14 am): Last week the

Treasurer announced the Bligh government’s commitment to half a billion dollars worth of new roadinfrastructure. Firstly, the Gateway upgrade south works will complete the last link in providing motoristswith at least six lanes of motorway from the airport to the Gold Coast. Construction works will includeupgrading this four-kilometre section of the Gateway Motorway between Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road andMiles Platting Road to six lanes—

Mr Reeves: Hear, hear!Mr WALLACE: I take the honourable member’s interjection—widening of the bridges at Prebble

Street and Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road interchange to three lanes in each direction, and minorimprovements at the Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road interchange. Works will be completed by the middle ofnext year, at a cost of up to $240 million.

Queensland Motorways will engage Leighton Abigroup Joint Venture to undertake thisconstruction as an extension of its current involvement with the adjoining Gateway Upgrade Project,helping save money in establishment costs and delivering improved infrastructure earlier forQueensland motorists. Careful planning and design will ensure that the upgrade will reduce the impacton landholders, with no compulsory resumptions required. However, Queensland Motorways may seekto negotiate with some landholders separately.

Intelligent transport system elements will also be employed to help manage traffic along thissection of the motorway. These elements will link to the Queensland Motorways Traffic ManagementCentre and will allow an interface with the Brisbane Metropolitan Transport Management Centre.Bringing forward the Gateway upgrade south works will deliver significant benefits to motorists sooner,including efficient freight movements to support the growth and development of the AustraliaTradeCoast, reduced congestion and associated costs, and improved safety and travel time reliability.

In parallel with this project, we will also commence a tender process for the construction of a newPort of Brisbane motorway, which will see the existing road almost double in length. The two-lanemotorway standard road will run from Lindum Road to Pritchard Street and will connect to the existingPort of Brisbane Motorway. These great infrastructure announcements are planning ahead to supportgrowth in South-East Queensland and build on our $18 billion Roads Implementation Programcommitment over the next five years.

Cyclone Ului, Disaster ManagementHon. NS ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency

Services) (10.16 am): Severe Tropical Cyclone Ului’s impact on the Whitsunday Coast community in theearly hours of Sunday morning provided yet another example of the effectiveness of the state’s disastermanagement system. From the outset, I want to thank all the people who played a role in preparing forthe cyclone’s arrival and responding to calls for assistance in its aftermath. I particularly acknowledgethe effective role played by local and district disaster management groups, led by local government andpolice, and the way in which they prepared and informed their communities.

Aided by advice from the Bureau of Meteorology, Emergency Management Queenslandmaintained a watching brief on Ului since its development on 11 March near Vanuatu. As the systemedged closer to the coast, EMQ worked with local councils and local and district disaster managementgroups to assist them with their preparations. Our natural disaster arrangements are built on the strongfoundation of local and district disaster management groups—locals are best placed to know the uniqueneeds of their own communities—with support provided by the state government through EmergencyManagement Queensland, police and other agencies.

On Sunday the Premier and I visited Proserpine and Mackay to inspect the damage caused byUlui. Mayors Mike Brunker and Col Meng reported that the damage suffered by the communities waslessened significantly by a combination of preparedness by local disaster agencies and the communityfollowing the advice to prepare for the cyclone’s arrival.

There is still much to be done in the clean-up from this cyclone. Local State Emergency Servicevolunteers from around the Mackay-Whitsunday region are working with council day labour to removefallen trees and debris. They are being supported by a further 80 SES volunteers who have travelled tothe area from surrounding regions. One of the major impacts of the cyclone was a loss of power acrossthe region, with significant damage to transmission and distribution infrastructure. This morning manythousands of residents are still without power. Our thanks go out to hundreds of Ergon Energy workerswho are working extended hours to restore power to the communities.

Joint state-federal government relief and recovery arrangements have been activated, providingimmediate financial support for individuals, families and councils to assist with the repair of damagedinfrastructure. Local disaster management arrangements are now in full recovery mode, which no doubtwill continue for many weeks and, in some cases, months.


Indigenous Communities, Reporting

Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander Partnerships) (10.18 am): Today I table the eighth quarterly report on key indicators inQueensland’s discrete Indigenous communities and the sixth quarterly report on the operations of theFamily Responsibilities Commission. School attendance is steady overall, much as in the previousreport period. While there has been considerable improvement in attendance rates on years past, thereis still a long way to go before all the kids in those communities are routinely and regularly attendingschool.

Tabled paper: Quarterly report on key indicators in Queensland’s discrete Indigenous communities: October-December 2009[1927].

Tabled paper: Family Responsibilities Commission report to the Family Responsibilities Board and the Minister for LocalGovernment and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships—Quarterly Report No. 6: October-December 2009 [1928].

The reports do record the good news that a number of communities show a decrease in the levelof hospital admissions for assault related conditions. Some of the big decreases have occurred incommunities such as Aurukun, which had a real reduction from six to four hospital admissions forassault over the three-month period, and Cherbourg, which had a reduction of 16 down to 13. Particularcongratulations must go to the communities of Kowanyama, six down to one; Lockhart River, five downto one; Mossman Gorge, five down to two; Napranum, eight down to three; and Wujal Wujal, two downto zero. Improvements have also been made in the northern peninsula area, five down to three, andWoorabinda, nine down to six.

These are encouraging figures. However, the story is not quite so good when we look at thefigures on reported offences against the person. There were eight communities with increases. This is aserious concern and so I have accordingly triggered an investigation into the reasons in these particularcommunities. However, some other communities did show decreases in the rates. These includeAurukun, Doomadgee, Hope Vale, Mornington Island, Napranum and Yarrabah.

So far as the Cape York welfare reform trial report is concerned, I commend all involved,particularly the family responsibilities commissioners—David Glasgow and others—and the staff. I notetheir report, however, on the need for better coordination of services particularly in connection with thewellbeing centres. In this regard, the Royal Flying Doctor Service now has a memorandum ofunderstanding to streamline how it refers clients between organisations so it can better meet clients’needs. Overall, the quarterly reports show that progress is being made and residents are saying thatrestoring local Indigenous authority is an important step forward towards stronger, healthiercommunities.

Natural Disasters, Recovery Assistance

Hon. KL STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (Minister for Community Services and Housing andMinister for Women) (10.21 am): When Mother Nature wreaks havoc, the great Queensland spiritshines through. Following the devastating floods in south-west Queensland and the destructive CycloneUlui at the weekend, people around the state have been helping each other. The Department ofCommunities has also swung into action to deliver assistance where and when people battling to rebuildtheir lives need it most.

In south-west Queensland, we have already helped flood affected communities with more than$890,000 through 2,300 assistance grants. Following devastation caused by Cyclone Ului in places likeAirlie Beach, Proserpine, Mackay and the Whitsunday islands, officers have been out and about offeringoutreach services and establishing community recovery centres. Centres are already open atCannonvale TAFE and the Proserpine Community Centre, where affected residents can accessinformation and emergency funds. A third recovery centre will be set up today at Churches of Christ inMackay on Beaconsfield Road.

People unable to visit community recovery centres can phone the Department of Communities’disaster recovery hotline on 1800173349. Through the hotline, the centres and our outreach services,eligible residents are able to access grants of $170 for individuals and up to $780 for households of fivepeople. The advice from North Queensland this morning is that we have already given grants to 30people and received 140 calls. These grants can be used for essential items such as food, clothing,medication and emergency accommodation. Lifeline, Red Cross and Centrelink services are also onhand to answer questions and provide support during this tough time. Staff have been away from theirfamilies, working from dusk to dawn to help communities through the recovery effort. I thank them fortheir efforts.




Carrara Stadium UpgradeHon. PG REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety and Minister for Sport) (10.23 am):

Queensland has one of the fastest growing populations in the country. The Bligh government is planningfor the future and tackling the challenge of this growth head on. At the same time, we recognise that anincreasing population opens up a world of opportunities. On the Gold Coast this growth has seen thebirth of the Titans and the Gold Coast United soccer team. And soon the Gold Coast Football Club, theAFL’s 17th team, will play at the redeveloped Gold Coast stadium from mid-2011.

Last week, I was pleased to join the Premier, the member for Southport, the member for Burleigh,representatives from the AFL and the Gold Coast City Council at the stadium to announce a further$11.9 million in funding towards its redevelopment. The AFL is contributing an additional $3.3 millionand the Gold Coast City Council is investing an additional $3 million in this project. This brings the totalextra funding to more than $18 million. The Bligh government has already committed $60 milliontowards the $126 million redevelopment of the stadium. With the new funds, the redevelopment is nowworth more than $140 million.

As we have rolled out our planning for the stadium, a number of opportunities became clear. Oneof those was an opportunity to make this a cleaner, greener stadium. Because of the new funding, solarpanelling up to five metres in width will be installed around the inner edge of the stadium’s roof. This willensure that we have made the best use of the sun’s energy to generate power and help reduce ouroverall carbon footprint. In a Queensland first, the installation of the panelling will generate around275,000 kilowatt hours of electricity per annum, or more than 20 per cent of the stadium’s total electricityneeds. This is equivalent to powering more than 250 homes in Queensland.

The redevelopment is estimated to generate more than 950 jobs during construction, and theoperation of the football club will generate more jobs for Queenslanders. As our population increases,the Bligh government is committed to delivering world-class sports infrastructure that keepsQueenslanders in jobs, stimulates the economy and is great for tourism. An economic impact studyconducted by the AFL estimates that the stadium will contribute $340 million to the economy over thenext 10 years. This economic benefit will be as a result of business generated by game-day patrons andinterstate travellers who will visit the Gold Coast for events at this stadium.

Disability ServicesHon. A PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Disability Services and Multicultural Affairs)

(10.25 am): With Queensland growing by over 100,000 people every year, the disability services sectoris presented with many unique challenges. An Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report haspredicted that 2.3 million Australians would have a profound or severe disability by 2030. One year ago,I identified three priorities. They were to provide more options to older carers caring for a loved one witha disability, to assist younger people with a disability who are living in aged-care facilities to move outand to provide support for children with a disability at the earliest point after diagnosis.

Firstly, we are leading the country in delivering support for older carers. As I stated in parliamentin the last sitting, over 40 per cent of our new social housing will assist families who have a member witha disability. Queensland has delivered 19 out of the 40 new beds so far created across Australia as partof our $18.3 million share of the Commonwealth’s disability assistance package. With this support,much of the pressure associated with planning for their child’s future will be alleviated.

Secondly, it is clear that aged care is not the best accommodation option for younger people witha disability. That is why, through the joint state-Commonwealth initiative, we have assisted around 100younger people to date with more appropriate accommodation options. Lives are being changed.

Thirdly, and most importantly for the future of service delivery, the Bligh government has initiatedinnovative programs to help our children with a disability. Child Connect officers are currently beingappointed in Townsville and Ipswich. They will proactively seek out families who have a child with adisability and link them with the services that they need early on.

In addition, we are providing $1 million on the Sunshine Coast for a new self-directed pilotprogram to provide up to 80 families with more flexibility. One year on, I have listened to hundreds offamilies throughout Queensland. They want us to be more proactive, they want us to provide moreflexibility and they want us to provide more specialist services, and we are delivering.

Electric CarsHon. KJ JONES (Ashgrove—ALP) (Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability) (10.27 am):

Today, I will be jumping into the driver’s seat of the first mass produced electric car approved forAustralian roads. I recently joined the CEO of Mitsubishi Australia to witness the arrival of two of theircars from Japan to Brisbane. Mitsubishi chose Brisbane as the first port of call on their demonstrationtour because Queensland has shown great leadership in facilitating the introduction of electric cars toAustralia. I invite MPs to join me outside Parliament House to inspect this cutting-edge technology whichis taking off around the world.

23 Mar 2010 Questions Without Notice 935

We can expect to see this type of cleaner technology hitting Queensland roads in the next fewyears. Cars are responsible for almost half of all emissions from the transport sector, and Queensland’sgrowing population and car use makes this both an increasing challenge and an opportunity for action.Electric vehicles produce fewer emissions than the average passenger car but, when hooked up torenewable energy, they offer zero-emission transport.

Last year, on behalf of the Queensland government, I signed up to the international EV20initiative to fast-track electric vehicle deployment. To deliver on that commitment, build on our trackrecord and properly prepare for the arrival of electric vehicles in Queensland in coming years, we mustbegin planning now.

The Minister for Energy and I are currently engaging with electric vehicle stakeholders andelectricity network providers to develop a state policy this year. We are looking at six key policy areas:environmental performance, infrastructure, regulation, behaviour change, industry development andrenewable energy.

I am excited about this technology because it brings enormous opportunities to reduce our carbonfootprint here in Queensland through the transport sector. I am pleased that Queensland can be at theforefront of their development in Australia and our government is committed to investigating everyopportunity we can.

SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

ReportMr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (10.29 am): I table the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee’s

Legislation Alert No. 4 of 2010. In addition, I table copies of two submissions received by the committeeregarding the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010.

Tabled paper: Scrutiny of Legislation Committee Legislation Alert No. 4 of 2010 [1929].

Tabled paper: Submission, dated 17 March 2010, from Mr Andrew Preston, barrister, regarding the Natural Resources and OtherLegislation Amendment Bill 2010 [1930].

Tabled paper: Submission, dated 17 March 2010, from Surat Gladstone Pipeline and Arrow Energy Ltd regarding the NaturalResources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 [1931].


School Group ToursMr SPEAKER: Honourable members, during today’s sitting of parliament we will be visited by

Genesis Christian College in Bray Park in the electorate of Pine Rivers and Stanthorpe State School inthe electorate of Southern Downs.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Sale of Public AssetsMr LANGBROEK (10.30 am): My first question without notice is to the Premier. The Premier

refused to take privatisation to the ballot box, refused to take privatisation to a referendum, refused totake privatisation to a 2010 conference with the Labor Party and refused to allow a special people’squestion time on privatisation. Will the Premier agree to a public debate with me to be held in a publicforum on Labor’s privatisation policies, or will the Premier run and hide?

Ms BLIGH: The Leader of the Opposition continues to astonish us all. Not only do we not knowyet what the LNP stands for when it comes to an economic strategy, not only does it have 15 positionsbefore lunch on the issue of privatisation; now it has turned to the federal parliament to seek its ideas fortoday’s parliament.

Today the Prime Minister will debate the leader of the federal opposition on the all-importantquestion of health. Why is there a debate outside the federal parliament today? Because this is a federalelection year and the issue of health will be one of the key issues in the federal election. I am very happyto debate the Leader of the Opposition, whomever it may be, on any issue when we get to a stateelection year. Do members know why? Because this is the house of debate. We have debated the issueof privatisation in this parliament, which is what this parliament is for. We have debated it at the lastLabor Party conference in 2009, and I will continue to debate it at any public forum where it is raised.




936 Questions Without Notice 23 Mar 2010

Our government has an economic strategy that is working and that is bringing Queensland out ofthe financial crisis which the entire world felt the repercussions of. And guess what? It is delivering jobsat a time when those opposite, if they had their way, would have been cutting jobs. Speaking of jobs, it ispretty hard to know who has what job on the other side at the moment. We know that the Leader of theOpposition about 12 months ago—I am not the only member of the House who is having an anniversaryat the moment—took over the position that he now holds. In doing so, he took the extraordinary step—Ithink unprecedented in politics—of putting the former leader in as his deputy, saying that he would be amentor for him.

What we have seen from day one, which everybody on this side of the House knew wouldhappen, has been constant undermining of the member for Surfers Paradise. What have we seen in thetwo weeks since this House last met? The member for Southern Downs has been on the phone talkingto the media about people in his own team having a birthday party. You cannot have a few birthdaydrinks in the LNP without the member for Southern Downs getting on the phone saying, ‘Bring on thecamera.’ I note that he has not interjected and claimed it to be untrue.

Taxes and ChargesMr LANGBROEK: The Premier had to use that one up a bit earlier than she planned to, didn’t

she? My second question without notice is also directed to the Premier. Before the election the Premiergave a commitment. ‘Queensland households are under real financial pressure,’ she said. ‘I will not kickthem when they are down and I will not abolish the petrol subsidy.’ The petrol subsidy has since beenscrapped, car registration has increased by 20 per cent, and now tolls on the Gateway Bridge will rise byone-quarter. On what date did the Premier decide households are no longer under financial pressure, oris it a fact that the Premier is kicking people when they are down?

Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. He actually asked a number ofquestions. In answer to his first question—did we have to use that one earlier—no, we have plenty morewhere that one came from. Don’t you worry about that. In relation to the question of households beingunder financial pressure, I am very conscious, as I think any hardworking member of parliament wouldbe, that there are many people, not just here in Queensland but across Australia and many parts of theworld, who have suffered financial stress. Why? Because we have seen the worst financial crisis—

Mr Horan: Queensland had the petrol tax, the rego, the electricity, the gas, the water—not theoverseas people, Queenslanders.

Mr Lucas: Good on you, Coach.Ms BLIGH: We will keep ‘Coach Horan’ in the box for a little bit longer. We have the mentor and

the coach, and isn’t he doing well with both of them? The global financial crisis hurt households. It hurt state and federal budgets. It hurt investors. It

hurt businesses. And, yes, there are many people doing it tough. That is why in our recent budgets wehave put in place a range of increases and new rebates to assist people, particularly pensioners, wherethey are finding it difficult. When it comes to things like electricity, water and rates, Queensland hassome of the most generous rebates for pensioners in Australia. Under our government they cancontinue to expect that kind of help.

I note the member for Surfers Paradise raised the question of tolls. I think it is time we talkedabout the member for Clayfield’s approach were he to be in a position to make decisions on thesematters. We have plenty of record to go on. The member for Clayfield was the head of finance when theBrisbane City Council, under Lord Mayor Newman, determined the tolls on the Clem7. In 2005 theycommitted to a toll of $2, but by 2006, as finance spokesman, the member for Clayfield increased it bynearly 50 per cent in one year to $3.30. When it comes to lifting the price of tolls, when it comes to liftingrates, go and check out the member for Clayfield’s credibility. When it comes to putting pressure onratepayers, the member for Clayfield is an expert at it. If the member for Clayfield had a chance to be onthe treasury bench, he would take the same attitude he took when he was in the Brisbane CityCouncil—lifting rates in breach of an election commitment and lifting the toll on the new north-southbypass tunnel so that it is the most expensive toll road in the country.

Primary SchoolsMrs SMITH: My question is also to the Premier. Would the Premier update the House on the

progress of one of the Bligh government’s key election commitments that is benefiting our primaryschool students?

Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. I note just how much good work shedoes in the schools in her electorate. The member for Burleigh, like the rest of my team, understandsthe awesome power of education to transform lives and create opportunities. Just over 12 months agowe were elected to protect jobs and to make the decisions that needed to be made in the toughest offinancial circumstances, but we also went to the election with a number of commitments that thoughtabout where Queensland and our economy should be long into the future.


Part of our election commitments included a $43.5 million Science Spark program to improve theperformance and enrolments in the sciences in primary and secondary schools. Why? Because a smart,modern, diverse economy in the 21st century will be driven by science and knowledge. We have seennot just in Queensland but right around Australia and in many other Western countries a decline inenrolments in sciences at secondary school and in tertiary education.

We know that a child’s love of science starts in primary school. That is why we have made acommitment to bring 100 specialist science teachers into the primary school sector. This is the first timethat a central program allocating specialist science teachers into our primary schools has occurred inQueensland. I am pleased to advise the House that we are doing what we said we would do—that is,delivering election commitments. All of those new science specialists will be in schools teaching whenterm 2 starts next month. They have been allocated to schools. That is an election commitment that isrolling out as we speak.

What it will do is help primary school children develop a better understanding and passion forscience in the early years of learning. In addition to those new science teachers, we have 15 newregional science managers.

Mr Messenger interjected.Ms BLIGH: They are working with years 4 to 7 teachers to develop their knowledge and skills in

science. I take the interjection from the member for Burnett. I am happy to advise him that we will havescientists trained in science talking about the issues of climate and the effects of human population onour climate.

Mr Messenger interjected. Ms BLIGH: I know the member for Burnett thinks that we should be teaching creation science in

our schools. We will be delivering scientists—Mr MESSENGER: I find those words offensive. I ask that the Premier withdraw them. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member found the words offensive. Ms BLIGH: I withdraw whatever the member found offensive. What we intend to do as a

government is to continue to roll out extra resources into our primary schools to ensure that youngpeople can be part of the great opportunities that this century will offer them here and overseas and tobe part of developing solutions and new ideas to the problems that we will face as a people in thiscentury, including climate change.

Road User ChargesMr SPRINGBORG: My question without notice is to the Minister for Transport. I refer to the

Connecting SEQ 2031 report due to be released midyear. Will the minister confirm that one of thefunding models being costed is a road user charge of 5c to 30c a kilometre for all cars in South-EastQueensland?

Ms NOLAN: My recollection is that the nickname for the member for Southern Downs when hewas at school was ‘Speedy’ on the basis that sometimes it took a little while for the now member forSouthern Downs to catch up. My very clear recollection is that this subject was debated in theparliament a number of weeks ago. At that time, the government made it abundantly clear that it is notcontemplating a policy of introducing a congestion charge for South-East Queensland roads. Thisgovernment specifically ruled out such a policy.

When it comes to transport in South-East Queensland we have a very clear position. Our positionis to build better infrastructure for South-East Queensland commuters. This government currently hastwo major busway projects underway—the Northern Busway from Windsor through to Kedron in thenorthern suburbs and the Eastern Busway from Buranda through to Coorparoo. Both of those projectswill significantly improve commuting times. Those projects are currently underway and they are part ofthis government’s costed plan for South-East Queensland public transport infrastructure.

Similarly, right now this government is extending rail from Darra to Richlands just as it hasrecently finished a brand-new stage of Gold Coast rail from Robina to Varsity Lakes. This government isin the process of rolling out 301,000 new public transport seats per week on public transport across thenetwork—ferry, bus and train—including two new trains which went into service on the Gold Coast linein December, with no road user charge.

This government has a very clear plan—no road user charge, better public transportinfrastructure and more services. In contrast, that side was going to cut services. A three per cent cut inpublic transport would have meant 170,000 fewer seats each week. There is a clear contrast. No usercharge but better public transport for the south-east is our policy. That is in contrast to the other sidewhich would have made cuts. Quite rightly the people chose us.


Airport Link, JobsMs DARLING: My question without notice is to the Premier. Can the Premier update the House

on how many workers are employed on the Airport Link project and how important this project is togrowth management in Queensland?

Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. As the member would know, because she drivesthis area very often, extraordinary progress is now being made on the Airport Link project. Because, likeall major road projects of its kind, it has protective barriers up, it is not always possible to understand theenormity of what is happening in and around this project. This is a $4.8 billion congestion buster project.As of today there are 2,700 workers on site as part of the project.

That will not be the end of employment on this project because it expects to ramp up to a peak incoming months of around 3,000 jobs. That is 3,000 jobs that were likely to have hit the ground if theother side had had an opportunity to form a government. These projects are essential to manage growthand the pressures of our growing population.

Mr Nicholls interjected.Ms BLIGH: I take the interjection because it was this very member who stood in front of TV

cameras and said, ‘We will have to cut some infrastructure projects.’ Of course those opposite nevertold us which ones. We can be pretty sure that some of them would have hit the ground—

Mr Nicholls: We said we wouldn’t build the Traveston Dam. Look what happened there. Youcouldn’t build it—$265 million lost. Tell us about that.

Ms BLIGH: Mr Speaker—Mr Lucas: And you’ll regret that forever. You have set the standard for stopping dams being built

in Queensland.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Both sides of the House will come to order. Mr Lucas interjected.Mr SPEAKER: The Deputy Premier will cease interjecting. Ms BLIGH: We know that with more people we need to cater for that growth and put in place the

infrastructure. It is about more roads like the Airport Link, which will take 18 traffic lights out of the pathbetween the CBD and the airport. But it is also about public transport. Part of the Airport Link project isthe Northern Busway that will connect to our growing bus and rail network. The other component of thisis the airport flyover. Those members who have been out to the airport regularly will know that it is takingshape. What this will do is eliminate that bottleneck from the Brisbane road network forever.

This is a massive project. It is the biggest in Australia. It does have an impact on locals and Ithank them for their patience. I am pleased to say that we now have construction underway on a two-kilometre conveyor belt that will take material out of the tunnel as it is bored. Some 80,000 truckmovements a year will be avoided as a result of that conveyor belt.

This is a project that symbolises what our government is about—creating jobs, investing incommunity and leaving a legacy of infrastructure that people need as we grow. That is what we went tothe election promising. That is what we have delivered. We will see more and more of it over the term ofthis government.

Road User ChargesMs SIMPSON: My question is to the Minister for Transport. I refer the minister to the Connecting

SEQ 2031 report due to be released midyear. Will the minister confirm that one of the funding modelsbeing costed is an annual levy of $100 per vehicle in South-East Queensland?

Ms NOLAN: No. The government is not considering either a road user charge or an additionalvehicle charge or levy of some kind. Those things are not a part of the government’s plan and they arenot a part of the government’s agenda. As I outlined a moment ago, the government has a clear positionon these matters. We are building better public transport infrastructure right now and we are rolling outmore services on public transport right now.

In contrast, the LNP went to the last election with a proposition to cut services by three per centand, in the case of public transport, that would have meant 174,000 fewer seats on buses, on ferriesand on trains across South-East Queensland every week. Similarly, the LNP went to the last electiontrying to trick people in Redcliffe and in the far northern suburbs of Brisbane around Moreton Bay shirewith its proposition to build a new rail service. The opposition went to the election promising initially tobuild the Petrie to Kippa-Ring rail line, and the commitment was made by the shadow minister early inthe campaign. It was reported in the Redcliffe and Bayside Herald in these terms—THE Petrie to Kippa-Ring rail link will be built with or without federal funding if the LNP is elected. In an announcement on Fridaymorning, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Main Roads and Transport, Fiona Simpson said construction on the rail line wouldstart during the party’s first term ...


Ms Simpson: If there was federal funding in the first term.Ms NOLAN: The report talks about the LNP. The Pine Rivers Press said—

The LNP has already promised it will build the Petrie to Kippa-Ring rail link by 2016 with or without federal funding if it wins theMarch 21 election.

Later it turned out that that promise was subject to the global financial crisis. We have a plan—we arebuilding it now—and it is not to cut seats.

(Time expired)

Health ServicesMr WELLS: My question is to the Deputy Premier in his capacity as Minister for Health, and I ask:

will the minister advise what steps the government is taking to build a strong medical workforce to tacklethe challenge of a growing and ageing population?

Mr LUCAS: One thing is for sure: if you have children looking for a career, you can assure themthat a career in health will be secure. It is a growing sector. According to the Australian Institute ofHealth and Welfare’s report Australia’s health 2008, between 2001 and 2006 there was 23 per centgrowth in the number of people employed in the health occupations. That is almost double that of allother occupations. In 2009 Queensland universities had a higher number of QTAC applications forplaces in health industries than for any other courses. The federal government’s announcement lastweek to increase training places for GPs and medical specialists is very welcome indeed. Queenslandhas done the heavy lifting since 2005 to bring more than 2,500 extra doctors into the workforce anddouble our intern numbers. Intern places will go from 280 in 2005 to 556 this year and 644 next year—that is, trainee doctors.

But it is not just about training interns, and this is where the federal government announcement isreally important; it is about where we go from here. Our unique—that is, decentralised—GP workforce ismore thinly spread but is still concentrated in the south-east corner. It also places more demands onhospitals and EDs in areas of GP shortage—many regional cities. The vast majority of Queensland’shealth specialists are also based in South-East Queensland. Training more specialists means moreelective surgery and more outpatient appointments. However, we do have critical shortages and longerwaits for patients of specialists in regional and country towns. Training more specialists in regionalQueensland will mean that fewer and fewer specialists are subject to burnout.

Queensland Health gets the opportunity to dictate where we will train our specialists. We get theopportunity to say, for example, that we want employees to spend a period of their time in regionalQueensland. The most important thing that we can do is provide more and more regional specialists,and we will continue to do that. How we do that is using our position to actually determine that. Thereare three benefits: we will improve the trainee’s specialist skill base; we will provide increased servicesat their level to their patients; and we will provide additional support to all existing regional specialists,meaning fewer call-outs and the like. The focus on rural and regional training places will make a hugedifference. There is significant anecdotal evidence to suggest that doctors are more likely to stay in acommunity where they have been trained.

We are pleased that the federal government has come on board to build on Queensland’s hardwork to grow our medical workforce. We will need more specialists and more GPs to manage risingchronic diseases and our ageing population. Health is not just about building facilities, and we are doingthat; health is also about training doctors, nurses and allied health professionals. It is a great pity thatnot everybody recognises the importance of this. In many regional communities we have somespecialists who might be the only person in town. That means that they are on call constantly, unlikespecialists in South-East Queensland. The more we can provide these people for those communities,the better we can have them supported and the less likely we are to have burnout and the more likelywe are to have sustainable services.

Road User ChargesMr NICHOLLS: My question is to the transport minister. I refer the minister to the Connecting

SEQ 2031 report due to be released midyear. Will the minister confirm that one of the funding modelsbeing costed is an annual levy on local government rates of up to $100 per property in South-EastQueensland?

Ms NOLAN: Let me be clear about this matter. There is one side of politics in Queensland thathas released an integrated regional transport plan which contemplates a congestion charge. That sideof politics is the old National Party. In 1997 the then National Party government, under the then transportand main roads minister Vaughan Johnson, released an integrated regional transport plan for South-East Queensland which contemplated a congestion charge for the south-east.


This government is currently finalising its consideration of the next integrated regional transportplan for South-East Queensland, but it has specifically, on the public record, ruled out new road andother kinds of charges. The integrated regional transport plan, which is currently being finalised, will notinclude new road charges. What it will include is the next round of infrastructure planning, building onthe work that we are currently doing to build new busways and to extend rail and to preserve corridors—corridors which opposition members frequently oppose when they come to their own parts of theworld—in order to build the next stage of public transport infrastructure for the south-east.

Similarly, when the integrated regional transport plan is released it will talk about the next stagesof growth in public transport services. Again in that regard, this government has the runs on the board.In the last five years there has been around a doubling of public transport spending in South-EastQueensland and there has been a massive growth in public transport patronage on buses, on trains andon ferries around the region. This government understands that public transport is sustainable transportand, if South-East Queensland is to grow sustainably, it is essential that we plan for our public transportfuture. This government is building now, it is delivering services now, and it is doing the next round ofplanning. But that planning does not include new road user charges—unlike the plan put forward by theLNP when it was last in government.

Green JobsMr O’BRIEN: My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer update the House on the Bligh

government’s commitment to creating green jobs? Mr FRASER: I thank the member for Cook for his question and his commitment to supporting job-

generating programs that give young Queenslanders in particular a chance to get into the workforce, toget a purchase in life and to move ahead—jobs, under our $57 million Green Army commitment, whichare there to support not only those young people getting a job but also the great natural environment ofthis state, which, in fact, is best represented by the member’s electorate of Cook.

I can report to this House that our Green Army project is on track and delivering jobs for youngQueenslanders. It started ahead of time and already it has $14.8 million in approved projects underway,883 work placements underway, along with 151 training placements. We have passed the 1,000 mark,well ahead of the one-year anniversary of the Green Army commitment as we ramp up a program that isthere to deliver jobs for young Queenslanders and to support out environment. Just like our commitmentto jobs generation, which has seen us grow jobs in the state by more than 24,000 over the past sixmonths—including 3,700 last month—this government is getting on with growing jobs and developingour economy.

While we have been growing jobs and developing our economy, what has the opposition in thisplace been developing? It has developed zero policies. It has developed a jobs target of zero. What hasit grown? It has grown a pumpkin. So far it has grown a pumpkin, not a policy. And holy moley, she is abig one. It might be a very worthwhile thing to grow a pumpkin and to put it on display, but I think outthere in the community there is a real harking desire that the opposition put something other than apumpkin on display. Perhaps we could suggest that the opposition put a policy on display—perhaps apolicy for dealing with how to react to the global financial crisis, how to chart a course for the future.

But who needs policies, who can get around to developing policies when you are so riven byinfighting, as the members opposite are? Last week, when the snitch was on the phone to thenewspaper about the story, we can imagine the conversation—‘I’ve got a story for you and, holy moley,she’s a big one. You won’t believe what they are up to now.’ The members opposite need to know thatout there in the community the people are looking for the opposition to put forward policy alternatives.Listen to their silence. Their silence is deafening, just as their silence on policy development isdeafening and just as their silence on disavowing the three per cent cut is deafening. Under their donothing, develop no policies, zero jobs target approach, they condemn this state to $25 billion worth ofmore debt.

On this side of the chamber we are committed to delivering on our policies, making the harddecisions, seeing them through, generating jobs and developing the economy. That is what people willsee from this government as we go into our second year. The people of Queensland want to see fromthe other side just one policy, not a big pumpkin.

Sale of Public AssetsMr SEENEY: My question is to the Premier. I refer to the comments in recent days from federal

Labor ministers Anthony Albanese and Martin Ferguson in relation to the government’s plans for sellingQueensland Rail, and I ask: if the Premier will not listen to the Queensland Resources Council, if thePremier will not listen to the coal companies and if the Premier will not listen to the trade unions, will thePremier listen to these federal Labor ministers when they say that this plan is detrimental toQueensland’s long-term future?


Ms BLIGH: So now the LNP supports privatisation as long as the coal companies get a crack atit. We have known from day one, of course, that they support privatisation. They went to the electionwith a policy supporting it. The member for Callide has just let the cat right out of the bag. The membersopposite want a situation where the largest multinational companies on earth get to buy a Queenslandasset instead of Queensland mums and dads. We believe that Queensland Rail—QRNational—will bean ASX top 50 company. It will be headquartered in Queensland. This will be a great thing for theQueensland economy and for the Australian economy.

What do we see today? We see people of the calibre of Allan Fels being quoted in the SydneyMorning Herald—but the report has been out for some time—saying that vertical integration ofcommercial rail lines is world’s best practice. You will find that the most successful commercial rail linesin Canada and in the northern parts of America are vertically integrated rail lines. I note that there aresome—

Mr Fraser: Release a policy.

Ms BLIGH: I think we just heard a policy and the policy of those opposite is that, when it comes toasset sales, when it comes to the sale of the commercial arm of Queensland Rail, it should go to thecoal companies—14 of the biggest companies, not ordinary investors, not Queenslanders. NotQueenslanders, no; the opposition says that it should go to coal companies.

We stand for a strong QRNational that will grow because it can leverage private investment inwhich Queenslanders will get a preferential share, in which mums, dads and workers will get anallocation. This plan makes it possible for Queensland Rail workers to work for a great Queenslandcompany in which they hold shares. Under the plan of those opposite, the Queensland Rail workerswould—

Opposition members interjected.

Ms BLIGH: Those opposite want QR workers to be employees of Rio Tinto and BHP. We wantthem to be employees of a great Queensland company owned by Australians and Queenslanders inwhich they hold shares. That is what we stand for. Now we know what they stand for.

Capital Works ProjectsMr WENDT: My question is to the Minister for Public Works. Could the minister inform the House

what projects the Department of Public Works anticipates letting next month and the effect they will haveon the future growth of Queensland?

Mr SCHWARTEN: I thank the honourable member for the question and I thank him for his recentcompany at two of our bigger projects—one at Lotus Glen and one at Gatton. The one at Gatton aloneis creating 3½ thousand jobs. Members might recall that this time last year there was an election. Duringthat election campaign those opposite promised that they would cut the building program. So to put thatinto some focus, I have some figures on what we are going to do just next month, leaving aside all ofthose other great big projects that we have. There are $86 million worth of projects that are out there inthe next month. That means $86 million worth of jobs in Queensland—from the Southport courthouseright up to Mornington Island.

In Project Services, there is $57 million worth of expenditure and 400 jobs. They are 400 jobs thatwould not have existed had those opposite been elected to government. The members oppositepromised to slash ICT expenditure. They made it very clear that they would get savings out of ICT. Whatare we spending? There are six projects worth $17 million—jobs in smart industries in ICT and makinggovernment work even better. In QBuild—which, of course, they would privatise—there is $12 millionworth of projects right across Queensland and work for subcontractors, with 60 per cent of those jobsgoing out the door.

Mr Springborg: Did you turn your computer on?

Mr SCHWARTEN: I hear the interjection from the member for Southern Downs who sits opposite.He is a mixture of Judas Iscariot and Brutus. He would never see a back that he would not stab. ‘Leaveno back unstabbed’ is his policy. Of course, he was there at the last supper, ear cocked to the wall—‘Ithink they might have put on another red wine. Did I hear another cork come out there? I must updatethem.’ I am told that the honourable member over there put on some very nice wines. He was entitled to,having reached his dotage like he has. He is entitled to have a few glasses of wine with a few of hismates. We live in Queensland, not in wowser land.

But it was not the wowser aspect of it; it was the underhanded, backstabbing running off to themedia. Wouldn’t you love to be on their team? They cannot even have a couple of shandies with theirmates without someone running to the papers and dobbing them in. Wouldn’t you love to be on that sideof the House?


Mr Springborg interjected.

Mr SCHWARTEN: He who protests the loudest is the one with the biggest bayonet—ask themember for Callide; ask the member for Toowoomba South.

Mr Lucas: Supergrass!

Mr SCHWARTEN: Not only a supergrass but a superstabber as well. ‘No back shall beunstabbed’ is his No. 1 policy. I welcome that aspect of his character. At least we know where he standsin that regard: with a bayonet right behind someone.

Cyclone Shelters

Mr MALONE: My question without notice is to the Minister for Emergency Services. In 2006 theLabor Premier used Cyclone Larry to promise to build category 5 cyclone shelters in every communitybetween Cooktown and Bundaberg. Four cyclone seasons later, I ask: how many of the 12 promisedshelters have been constructed and where?

Mr ROBERTS: I think it is probably best to put into context the actual commitment that was madeand I will read that out for the House. The member has a history of extrapolating in his own words andhis own imagination what commitments are. I will put on the record what the actual commitment is andthen tell members what we have done. In the lead-up to the election the Premier committed to—

providing specially equipped cyclone shelters as part of the planning and budgeting process for upgrading existing, orincorporating within, selected new public buildings in the most cyclone prone areas, from Bundaberg north to the Torres Strait andin western Cape York.

That is exactly what we have done. I saw a transcript of what the member said when speakingabout this issue on ABC Radio last week. He did confuse the two issues. There are, in fact, two issueswith respect to cyclones. There are cyclone shelters, which are designed to cater for high winds, andthere are evacuation centres. Evacuation centres are part of every local disaster management plan.Local councils work with Emergency Management Queensland and others to identify particularlocations where people go to after an event for support. Cyclone shelters are a different issue. It isactually an issue that the Minister for Public Works is directly involved in. His department has beenworking with a number of agencies, both state and local government, in identifying new buildings thatare coming on stream, schools in particular, and strengthening the design capabilities of those buildingsfor cyclone shelters.

In recent times we had a community cabinet in Innisfail. That was held in one of those buildings, avery large facility, that can house many hundreds of people during cyclones. The buildings that areeither completed or close to completion are at Innisfail, Redlynch and Kowanyama. As I have indicated,the government is working with agencies and councils to identify and upgrade the design of buildings asthey come on line.

The reality with cyclones is that the safest place is in the strongest room in your home. The lastthing we need in cyclones is to have hundreds or thousands of people leaving their homes heading forcyclone shelters. We certainly need shelters throughout the community as safe buildings that ultimatelycan house response capabilities, but the clear message to communities when a cyclone is approachingis that the safest place for them to be is inside their home or business in the strongest room. That is theinformation that needs to be given out to the community. The government is demonstrating that it isrolling out that policy. That will continue over the coming years. As new buildings are built they will beupgraded to those specifications.

Drought Proofing

Ms CROFT: My question is to the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Ministerfor Trade. With welcome rain in the south-east and dam levels approaching the magic 100 per centmark, can the minister please advise what contingencies are in place for the next drought?

Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the honourable member for the question because it is an excellentdemonstration of planning to meet the needs of a growing region such as South-East Queensland. The$9 billion South-East Queensland water grid is all about securing water supplies now and for the future.The work continues. To roll out massive infrastructure such as we have done requires a commitmentnow and into the future. The new Ewen Maddock water treatment plant is up and running. Thatrepresents about a $41 million investment that supplies around 1,700 megalitres per year to theSunshine Coast. We have also started the $800 million water pipeline interconnecter stage 2, which willmean an extra 65 megalitres per day of treated water that can be transferred between Brisbane and theSunshine Coast.


On the Gold Coast, member for Broadwater, we are seeing the raising of the Hinze Dam so theGold Coast will never return to the drought conditions it experienced only a number of years ago. Thatraising will increase the capacity of the Hinze Dam to some 300,000 megalitres. It will also include aflood mitigation storage of some 800,000 megalitres, which will be an innumerable benefit to the peopleof the Gold Coast.

This significant investment in infrastructure comes at a price. We have had to see, as a result ofthat, increases in water prices across South-East Queensland. It is regrettable but it is necessary.Contrast that honesty with the commitment to underground all powerlines in South-East Queenslandover the next 20 to 25 years. We heard this morning that it would cost around $56 billion. Thatrepresents $2 billion to $3 billion each year over that period which the opposition would have to committo if it were to carry through with this policy. As the member for Callide said, they have been on aboutthis for 10 years. They have gone through three election campaigns without uttering a word about thiscommitment. Let us take the time now to nail their colours to the mast. The announcement by theLeader of the Opposition that they would have a 20- to 25-year strategy to underground power lines at acost of $56 billion means that they start the next election campaign $3 billion in debt. There is only twoways to do it: slash infrastructure already underway or put up electricity prices to around $14,000 perQueenslander.

(Time expired)

Blue CardMs DAVIS: My question without notice is to the Minister for Child Safety and Minister for Sport.

Applicants for a blue card in Queensland can claim one of three genders: male, female andindeterminate. New South Wales, based on crown law advice, has reversed an earlier decision torecognise a person as being neither a man nor a woman. How many people of indeterminate genderhave Queensland blue cards and what is the minister’s legal advice on their validity?

Mr REEVES: I thank the honourable member for the question but I think she should ask thatquestion to the appropriate minister.

Schools, InfrastructureMs STONE: My question without notice is to the Minister for Education and Training. Could the

minister outline to the House how the Bligh government is delivering on its commitment to build andrebuild Queensland schools to help cope with our increasing population?

Mr WILSON: I thank the honourable member for the question. I recognise the hard work that sheputs in to her school communities, both state and non-state. The Bligh government is focused uponinvesting in our education system to build a world-class education system for the future. It is building onall of the strengths that we have right now. The government is not only investing in our students in termsof new curriculum and teachers through new quality measures but also investing in new infrastructure.We are doing this because population growth is putting added pressure on our schools throughout thestate.

Not only do we want to make sure that new schools are being built to deal with the populationpressures that are occurring, particularly in the south-east corner; we also want to make sure that weare developing, renewing and refurbishing the existing schools within our state school system. That iswhy we have an $850 million State Schools of Tomorrow infrastructure building program in place, whichover the period of the program has generated about 6,550 jobs and is still being rolled out. As part ofthat, recently we announced an investment of $14 million to build new science laboratories in highschools, in addition to the ones we are already building. With that additional $14 million, we will be ableto build 296 new science laboratories in many state high schools.

We are also rolling out a $4 million program, the Smart Schools Subsidy Scheme, to 31 schoolsto help particular improvement projects such as new art rooms, remodelled kitchens and so on—forexample, the kitchen at the Kimberley Park State School in the member’s electorate. Also we are putting$50 million into the non-state sector for capital improvements. We have announced an extra fiveschools, taking to 100 the number of schools benefiting from that capital investment in the non-stateschool sector. Why are we investing in both sectors? Because we believe that parents should have achoice about the sector in which they enrol their children. We will continue that support.

Where is the LNP on plans, policies and new ideas for education and training? I have checkedthe LNP website and there is nothing. I have checked the website of the member for Moggill and there isnothing. I have checked the website of the member for Surfers Paradise and there is nothing. We knowthat policy innovation is happening with the member for Beaudesert, but I have checked his websiteand, regrettably, there is nothing there. They have invited former Prime Minister Howard to help them fillin the blanks and now they are asking for Barnaby Joyce to help them as well.

(Time expired)


Kingaroy, Underground Coal Gasification ProjectMrs PRATT: My question without notice is to the Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability.

Given the lack of any positive, long-term environmental data being able to be unearthed by concernedresidents of Kingaroy about underground coal gasification, will the minister table the successful UCGproject data on which this government based its support for Cougar Energy’s pilot project to beundertaken on the very edge of the Kingaroy township? If data from the Chinchilla UCG site was used,what long-term monitoring was or is being conducted at that particular UCG site?

Ms JONES: I thank the honourable member for the question. As always, and as the member wellknows, if she has any issues involving the environment she is more than welcome to discuss them withme. I wish to be very clear: when it comes to any type of mining in Queensland we have a strong recordin terms of the environment. In the past three years we have more than doubled the number of stafflooking into the compliance of mines in Queensland. The staff continue to work with Cougar Energy andother mining companies throughout Queensland to ensure that they comply.

In the past 12 months we have also seen a significant increase in the fines issued to miningcompanies that break the law, because we take seriously our environmental responsibilities under thelegislation introduced into Queensland by Labor governments. To be clear, ERA fees were increased toensure that we could double our staff. We have increased environmentally relevant activity fees—including those that affect the behaviours that the member is talking about—in order to double ourcompliance staff. This was opposed by those opposite. They continue to write to me opposing this,because they do not believe in the strong credentials that we have with regard to mining.

In regard to the underground coal gasification system referred to by the member, the Minister forMines and I are working to ensure that we get the best technology. Reporting requirements are acondition of the licensing arrangement and we continue to monitor the reporting requirements andlicensing conditions. As I said, not only do we put conditions on individual mines that they have to meetin regard to their licensing requirements—and they have to continue to monitor and provide thatinformation to us; we have also strengthened that by increasing our workforce, the sole responsibility ofwhich is to make sure they are doing just that.

I am happy to meet directly with the member to discuss this in further detail, but I assure allmembers of the House that this is something we take very seriously. Despite having no bipartisansupport on the issue, we will continue to do that going forward.

Surat BasinMr SHINE: I direct my question to the Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Rural and

Regional Queensland. Can the minister please update the House on what the office of rural andregional Queensland is doing to manage growth in the rapidly expanding Surat Basin?

Mr MULHERIN: I thank the honourable member for Toowoomba North for the question. Asmembers know, the member for Toowoomba North takes a keen interest in Toowoomba and thesurrounding regions, including the Surat Basin.

Last week in Roma the Premier announced $23.65 million in funding for infrastructure andservices for the Surat Basin. That funding is part of the $100 million sustainable communities fundingpackage to resource communities to deal with growth. The emergence of the $40 billion LNG industrywill bring unprecedented growth to the Surat Basin and we want to ensure that growth is properlymanaged.

Last week the Premier attended a forum that outlined ways in which local communities, localgovernments, state and federal governments and industry could work together to manage the rapidgrowth associated with this expected boom in the LNG and coal seam gas industry. The forum was wellattended by representatives from community groups, the chamber of commerce, unions and localgovernment. Those representatives raised concerns such as the need for the workforce to live locally,as well as the need for well-serviced communities with adequate infrastructure, including health,education, roads, medical services, water and so on, long-term planning and sustainability, andgovernment partnerships working with industry and the community.

This is an important part of our overall population growth management strategy to createopportunities in the regions, particularly regions where there are great job opportunities. The only waythat will work is to ensure that we have areas where people want to live and raise a family. That is whypart of this package included $4.7 million to upgrade the Roma airport and why other funding has beenprovided to improve health and ambulance services. There is a whole range of things such as roadprojects which will be funded through the $23.5 million.

This government is getting on with the job, planning for the future and ensuring we have aQueensland that people want to work and live in. Contrast that with the opposition, which has no plans,no policies and no ideas. That is why those opposite are stuck in the past. They have asked JohnHoward to help them out because they are stuck in the past with no ideas and no policy.

23 Mar 2010 Matters of Public Interest 945

Crab DilliesDr ROBINSON: My question is to the Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Rural and

Regional Queensland. Given that turtle deaths were the government’s stated reason for the state-wideban on inverted crab dillies to begin in early April and given the government’s admission, in answer toquestion on notice No. 31, that there has been only one recorded turtle death in Queensland waterssince 2005 from crab dillies, will the minister reverse this ridiculous ban as it is clear it has no scientificbasis?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The minister has two minutes. Mr MULHERIN: I thank the honourable member. The short answer is no, we will not be reversing

this ban. This is about ensuring that we have a sustainable fishery. The member may not know thatinverted dillies are used for the blue swimmer crab fishery. The blue swimmer crab fishery requiredfederal approval under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Under that act,the federal government places restrictions or conditions because of the wildlife trade operation. Part ofthat was to look at the impact that fishing apparatus would have on protected species such as turtles.

This issue was addressed by CrabMAC, which is made up of representatives of the crab-fishingindustry, conservationists, scientists and recreational fishers. We issued a regulatory impact statement,and 75 per cent of respondents agreed with the proposal to phase these things out. Amendments weremade on 12 December. We do not plan to reverse that decision. As I have said, this is all about ensuringthat people who are involved in the commercial fishery have access to not only local markets but alsointerstate markets. It is conditioned under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity ConservationAct.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for question time has ended.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST

Sale of Public AssetsMr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.30 am): This morning

we have seen the Premier running away and squibbing a chance to have a public debate on Labor’sprivatisation plans. A challenge was issued to the Premier this morning to have a public debate in apublic forum. Kevin Rudd is prepared to have such a debate with Tony Abbott, but the Premier hassquibbed and is refusing to have a privatisation debate until the next election.

By the time of the next election, more than $15 billion of public assets will have been sold,including parts of Queensland Rail, the motorways, the ports and the forestry plantation. This showswhy the majority of Queenslanders think that Anna Bligh, the Premier, did not tell the truth in the lead-upto the last election. We know that the Premier told mistruths to the people of Queensland. Now shewants to scurry away from having a public debate about these mistruths. It is very clear. She does notwant to have a privatisation debate, does not want to have a referendum, does not want to have an ALPconference, does not want to have a special people’s question time and has refused to have a publicdebate.

This weekend just gone marked the fact that 12 months ago the people of Queensland wereconned. They trusted this Premier and her government to deliver on a plan to secure the prosperity ofthis great state of ours. But instead they got a mistruth, a great big mistruth. Since then they have gotexcuses, and they are tired of excuses. A year ago almost to the day they were taken for a ride. Theywere told ‘jobs not cuts’. But instead this Premier and her mean and tricky little Treasurer hid the detailsof the plans that they undoubtedly had to sell off key state assets in a fire sale.

The people of Queensland were not told of the great mistruth before the last election. They werenot told of the Premier’s plan to raise public debt from $64 billion to almost $85 billion over the forwardestimates. It is obscene in how much it is, it is obscene in how quickly the Labor Party has clocked it upand it is obscene in the burden that it places on every Queensland child and family for years and yearsto come. In the last week we have seen this obscenity on show. We have seen the government continueits ham-fisted plan to sell off the farm at the expense of future generations of Queenslanders.

The LNP and I are against a fire sale of key assets. We are against the money being spent onsimply paying down interest because Labor cannot balance the books, and I am against theunderhanded, sneaky and, quite frankly, deceitful way this Premier and her little Treasurer have goneabout deceiving the people of Queensland to keep this tired old Labor government afloat. It must beclear to those on the other side that their days on the treasury bench are coming to an end. The peopleof Queensland are fast making up their minds that they want this mean, sneaky and arrogantgovernment to come to an end, and the people of Queensland are fast forming the opinion that thisPremier is simply keeping the seat warm until later in this term when the faceless men of the Labor Partychoose who will be Queensland’s new tsar.

946 Matters of Public Interest 23 Mar 2010

In the last week we have seen the Premier and her little Treasurer take yet another step in theirarrogant plan to sell off the assets. Last week we found the government had decided to fatten up thecow for market day. The media got wind of the government’s decision to jack up tolls on the GatewayBridge and the Logan Motorway. In a desperate and dirty attempt to make the toll roads more profitableand therefore fetch a better price when they are sold off, this arrogant government is hittingQueenslanders twice. When they eventually sell off Queensland Motorways, the innocent commuter willultimately have to pay. Many of them have put their trust in this Premier and Treasurer. When they travelto work each day, when many of them visit family and friends and when many of them try to drive to ahospital, they will be paying a higher toll, and when the motorways are sold the tolls will go up evenhigher.

The Treasurer is sounding like Wayne Swan, his federal counterpart, before the last election.Wayne Swan in the election campaign of 2004 said that the money that was offered by the thenTreasurer Peter Costello was ‘not real money’. The Treasurer last week said that an increase of 90c wasactually only an increase of 35c. That is the cost of the toll increase for a normal car but some vehicleswill cost up to $10 to cross the Gateway Bridge. This is a Treasurer who has lost touch. He cannotaccept that the people of Queensland find this increase harsh and unjust. He has spent so long havingsomeone else pay his fuel bills that he thinks this extra increase is not real money. Tell that to the peoplewho are having to pay hundreds of dollars more per month to go across the Gateway Bridge and arehaving to top up their accounts. This is another impost on top of registration costs and on top of theother charges that we know have made this the most expensive state in the country in which to own andregister a car.

The people of Queensland are sick of this government which thinks that the good people ofQueensland have bottomless pockets that can pay more and more for a government that is unable tocontrol its spending. Spending is in Labor’s DNA. They cannot escape it. Like Gollum to the ring—theyjust cannot help themselves. From its earliest days, to the Whitlam government, to the excesses of thelast almost 20 years here in Queensland, the Labor Party has never been able to control its hunger forhigher taxes and more spending, and it is the ordinary and hardworking men and women of Queenslandwho have to pay more for this government. Now through higher tolls and privatised roads, the people ofQueensland will cop it in the guts again.

Not only are they intent on jacking up tolls and hurting Queensland families, the Premier andTreasurer will never be honest and upfront with the people of Queensland. On notice, the oppositionasked the Treasurer to advise the parliament and the people of Queensland what expenses thisgovernment had incurred to prosecute its so-called Renewing Queensland Plan—the plan to sell off thestate’s assets and deprive future generations of Queenslanders of the prosperity these assets create.

On 11 February this year, we asked the Treasurer to come clean with the people of Queenslandand detail the cost for the Premier and the Labor Party to break faith with the people of Queensland andindeed their own supporters in the union movement, and what did the Treasurer say? He said nothing.In a 2½-line answer to our question on notice—so arrogant is this Treasurer, so out of touch is thisTreasurer, so slippery is the Treasurer with Queenslanders’ money—all he said was that the costswould be revealed in the Treasury’s annual report which, as we all know, is usually published well intothe following financial year. As every member of this House knows, it will almost be the end of 2011,possibly the start of 2012, before we see the annual report for this financial year—well into the futureand the government of course will be hoping well after the fury that it has created dies down and theassets are all sold off. That is how sneaky this Treasurer is. He will not tell the people of Queenslandhow much money is being burnt up on propaganda, consultancies and marketing—all lining the pocketsof, amongst others, Labor mates. In the meantime, all that money—the millions of dollars spentconvincing the people of Queensland that selling the state’s assets is good for them and that theyshould look the other way—could have been used to reduce waiting times in our public hospitals orspent on Reading Recovery teachers in Queensland’s underfunded schools where tests show that thereis a crisis of underachievement going on.

In the last week we saw the awful truth—and it was raised here again by the honourable memberfor Callide—of Labor’s mismanaged plans to sell off Queensland Rail. In the last week and in the lastcouple of days we have seen Martin Ferguson and Anthony Albanese criticise this Premier and theTreasurer’s plans to sell off parts of Queensland Rail. Martin Ferguson told it how it is—Labor’s plans tosell off parts of Queensland Rail will not necessarily be the best way to create investment and jobs in thefuture. As I said, Anthony Albanese is opposed to the vertically integrated way that this incompetentstate government is planning to sell off Queensland Rail. Anthony Albanese has slammed thisgovernment for potentially creating a monopoly in rail—creating a private monopoly from a publicmonopoly.

The model chosen has no efficiencies, no productivity improvements and more supply chainproblems. The Premier and Treasurer should release the advice from their advisers saying why they areso insistent on selling QR as a monopoly. But this government will not even listen to its own seniorfederal colleagues. The Premier is determined to sell off Queensland Rail in a way that will damage theprosperity of this state for years to come.


We had the charming sight of the Treasurer calling the coal companies the dogs who caught thebus, but that is so typical of Labor. They fail Queenslanders. It does not matter what they do or say; it isjust another Labor excuse. On Friday, to show how delusional and out of touch she is, the Premier hadthe audacity to put her unpopularity down to the fact that she is female. What an offensive statement! Itis offensive because of what it says about what the Premier really thinks of her fellow Queenslanders,and it is offensive for the double standard that it perpetuates. What an offence to women everywhere,including in this place, and it shows her desperation.

The Premier, her Treasurer and this tired and worn-out government will do anything to cling topower. They lack the trust and competence to govern Queensland for the future. This Premier and hergovernment are in terminal decline. We are determined to offer a strong alternative to restore theconfidence in the people of Queensland. We will get back the AAA credit rating. We will express policiesacross a range of issues, big and small. Most importantly, we will do it with honesty and integrity,because that is what people expect of their leaders.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! Before calling the next speaker, I acknowledge in thegallery students and teachers from Genesis Christian College of Bray Park, represented in this Houseby Carolyn Male, the member for Pine Rivers.

Cyclone UluiMs JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (11.40 am): Cyclone Ului sat in the Coral Sea for more than a

week before turning to cross the coast right over Airlie Beach. This waiting time was put to good use bylocal communities, with house yards cleared of potential missiles, gutters cleaned, food bought andstored, boats moved to marinas and safer anchorages, and emergency response plans honed to a finestate of preparedness. By midnight on Saturday we had lost power and had bunkered down for what weknew was going to be a wild night.

This was my first cyclone, and there is no doubt that it is Mother Nature’s most frightening andawe-inspiring personality. At one stage, Hamilton Island recorded wind gusts of over 200 kilometres anhour. For most of us, it is the sound of roaring wind and creaking buildings that will stay with us as anenduring cyclone memory. The eerie quiet of the cyclone’s eye descended at around 2 am and gave usour first glimpse of the catastrophe occurring outside. While we were grateful that our house wasbasically still in one piece, it became obvious that the town’s vegetation had been put through a blender.There was no real time for inspection, however, because we knew that the second act was about tobegin.

Another three hours or so later, the worst of the wind had passed. Thus began the aftermathphase, which for many is continuing as I speak. Despite the ferocity of the winds, it has been widelyconcluded that on the whole we dodged a bullet when it came to structural damage. Across the regionroofs were lost, sheds were destroyed, and signage and shade sails were shredded, but this was theexception rather than the rule. Perhaps the most devastating damage of all occurred to boats around theWhitsundays that either dragged anchor or moorings, or were crunched by these boats as they went by.Some boats are still unaccounted for; others are sunk or smashed on the rocks; while still others lie likebeached whales high and dry and perfectly intact. Seeing boats like this is heartbreaking. I, for one, amnow an absolute advocate for a new marina at Shute Harbour. If these boat owners had a safe harbourto retreat to, they may not now be left with such a devastating outcome. My thanks, and that of manyboat owners in Airlie Beach, goes out to Meridien Marinas for opening its doors to so many boats likeours that habitually sit on a mooring in the bay. Their generosity undoubtedly saved many of us fromlosing our vessels.

The trees, gardens and sugarcane crops of the area were the other big losers in the cyclone.Many trees were partly stripped of leaves or, worse still, uprooted or broken into pieces. Our councilshave done an amazing job of cleaning vegetation debris from the roads of the region, but the bigger taskof removing green waste will go on for councils and homeowners for some time. Cane growers have ananxious wait until harvest time.

A very special mention must be made of the disaster management committees that satthroughout Saturday night and were ready to spring into action at first light on Sunday. It is an amazingcommitment to leave your own family on such a night in the interests of many. I hope that they willaccept this as the grateful thanks of a community for a job well done. The SES, of course, is anotherimportant element of the disaster management regime. As usual, these amazing volunteers were onhand to meet the first calls for help. Mackay and Whitsunday regional councils also deserve our thanksfor their outstanding work both before and after the event.

I want to stress that, while we were lucky to survive with very little structural damage and no lossof life, the struggle will go on for those who have sustained damage to property and for thosebusinesses that have lost trade and goods from the lack of power. In fact, power is yet to be restored tomany homes. While I understand the frustration that this engenders, I know that Ergon is doingeverything possible to mend a system that has been torn apart.


One of the biggest issues going forward will be to get our tourism reputation back on track. I amdevastated to hear that bookings are being cancelled for the Easter holidays because we will, with veryfew exceptions, be back to business as usual by then. I have spoken to both the Premier and thetourism minister about the need for a quick response to this issue. I know that Tourism Queensland willbe working to do what it can to assist. If people really want to help this community rebuild, they can dono better than to have their next holiday in the Whitsundays.

Toowoomba Disability Services CentreMr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (11.45 am): St Patrick’s Day in Toowoomba this year was

especially memorable, for a newly refurbished $1.4 million centre for people with a disability wasofficially opened by disability services minister, Annastacia Palaszczuk, in Toowoomba, despiterenovations being stalled by two separate break-ins leading up to it. What is undoubtedly true and whatwas acknowledged by the minister was that the new purpose-built centre was an indication ofToowoomba’s strong community spirit and willingness to support others. The local community raised$500,000 to make this project a reality and the Bligh government was happy to provide another$500,000 in capital funding, with the Cerebral Palsy League of Queensland contributing the remainderfor what is an excellent facility.

The centre will make a genuine difference to the lives of the 50 adults and more than 80 childrenwho go there, as well as to the lives of their families. Among a range of other services, the centre willgive adult clients more opportunities to get out into the community and live productive and rewardinglives. The service run by the Cerebral Palsy League of Queensland, or CPL, had previously been splitbetween two offices. CPL will deliver respite and accommodation services as well as a range ofeducation, training and employment services. The upgraded facility has a purpose-built kitchen for lifeskills training, a therapy area, a music therapy room and a staff training area. The redevelopment willallow CPL to meet the increasing demand for disability services in the Toowoomba and southQueensland region generally.

The Scott Street centre was broken into twice within one month earlier this year. The CerebralPalsy League was able to continue its service thanks only to generous support from the localcommunity. Thanks and congratulations go to Toowoomba CPL members for their commitment to thisproject and for their ongoing commitment to people with a disability in the Darling Downs region. I amvery pleased the Bligh government is committed to working with non-government owned disabilityservice providers such as the Cerebral Palsy League. The Queensland government provides the CPLwith $4.3 million to support people with a physical disability in Toowoomba and the south Queenslandregion. State-wide, the CPL received almost $41 million this financial year from the Bligh government.

The disability services minister, Annastacia Palaszczuk, also met with young people with adisability being assisted through a $4 million Bligh government post-school education program. Thesum of $116,280 was allocated to help 11 young people with a disability in Toowoomba, which will allowthem to participate in their local community after finishing school. This program is about giving youngpeople with a disability a fair go after they finish school and more opportunities to live productive andfulfilling lives. The Post School Services Program helps school leavers to develop skills that will staywith them for life.

Locally, Hhelp Toowoomba provides these 11 young people with an opportunity to learn and earnthat they otherwise would not have. Raising a teenager can be difficult for any parent. This programtakes some of the time and financial pressure off parents and carers. This program gives young peoplewith a disability the skills which put them in a position to gain employment or continue their education.By strengthening these young people’s communication skills and teaching them practical skills like howto use a computer or catch public transport, we give them more independence and take a great deal ofpressure off their parents. For all teenagers, enhancing social interaction and community awareness is apart of growing up.

Delivering better care and support for young people with a disability and their families is one ofthe Bligh government’s top priorities. That is what this initiative is all about. It is great to see so manyyoung people making a life for themselves. We are working in partnership with non-governmentorganisations across Queensland to support more young Queenslanders with a disability. I congratulatethe minister in particular for her commitment and devotion to this cause.

Transport PlanningMs SIMPSON (Maroochydore—LNP) (11.50 am): Where is the integrated regional transport

planning which is supposed to be focusing and strategically driving how $7 billion worth of taxpayers’money this year is spent on transport and roads in Queensland? It does not exist. For South-EastQueensland, where the bulk of this money is being expended, the plan to integrate the road transportnetwork is about three years out of date. The new one is still in multiple draft forms. It is being wheeledin and out of cabinet and has recommendations from the department for additional road user charges


such as the controversial 15c- to 30c-per-kilometre congestion charge. This proposal went to cabinetonly two weeks ago. The government claims, like it did with the petrol tax, that it will not happen underits watch. We have heard that before. I call on the transport minister to release this plan.

This government has no coordinated plans on how to spend money wisely. It has lots of plans onhow to raise money but no eye for value and just excuses for cost blow-outs and disappearing deliverytime frames in SEQIPP, the infrastructure plan. The only expertise this Labor government has is in pricegouging motorists and ordinary Queenslanders to pay for this government’s mismanagement.

The hike in the Gateway Motorway and Logan Motorway tolls is the latest. It will add $30 to $40per week to a commuter’s average costs. This comes on top of the government’s broken promise on thepetrol tax, Australia’s highest vehicle registration costs and the dishonest asset sales. That is notplanning for a sustainable Queensland; that is a desperate, shonky and tired Labor government.

A livable and sustainable Queensland requires more than just vision statements fromgovernment; it requires strategic, cost-effective and well-executed actions. This state Labor governmentwill trumpet how billions of dollars have been spent on transport and main roads in the last few years,but it has done it without a current integrated regional transport strategy let alone properly costed andplanned projects. This is a crying waste of taxpayers’ money.

The last plan expired years ago. It was the subject of great criticism by the Auditor-Generalbecause it lapsed and there was a lack of coordination in government. The new strategy for South-EastQueensland, Connecting SEQ 2031, has been leaking from the public sector because it does includenew road user charges and costs for Queenslanders.

Let us look at other plans that are out of date. The TransLink network plan is at least two yearsout of date. That is about the services that run on the infrastructure. It is out of date; it has expired. Themajority of the road and public transport projects in SEQIPP, which is supposed to be the masterplanning document for rolling out infrastructure, have never been subject to even a preliminary costevaluation let alone a business case—nor have they been developed as part of a truly integratedtransport system.

This government is pouring money like water into a bucket that has a hole in it. In fact, there aremany holes in Anna’s bucket. The holes are from a lack of proper strategic planning, scoping of projectsand competency in delivery. Taxpayers are paying for this. What does this mean?

Let us look at some of the cost blow-outs that have put a hole in the other projects that requirefunding. The Ipswich Motorway upgrade blew out by $800 million. The western corridor recycled waterpipeline also blew out by $800 million. That is $1,600 million for those two projects. That is a lot ofmoney. That is equivalent to paving and sealing over 8,000 kilometres of rural roads. That is more thandouble the distance between Adelaide to Cairns via Melbourne or nearly double the distance betweenBrisbane and Perth. It is about double two Northern Busways at a cost of $735 million each. It is nearlytwo Gold Coast Rapid Transits at a cost of $949 million. It is more than ample funding for the Robina-Varsity Lakes rail, which was costed at $300 million, and the Springfield line, which will currently cost$386 million.

This government has no plan to connect population growth and the road and public transportinfrastructure that is required to sustain that growth. What we have seen is a blatant hot air balloon ofplanning. When we look at it we see that it is full of promises and lacks substance or a gritty evaluationto provide a well-costed, scoped and planned pathway to sustainable growth. When we see these sortsof cost blow-outs we see a mark of lousy planning. Other worthy projects are quietly rolled back withoutfanfare. This is what is happening across government.

I want to turn to another important issue. That is the issue of public servants facing forcedrelocation to the transport minister’s electorate. It is about forced relocations and not about what is in thebest interests of service delivery and addressing some of the fundamental issues in the public sector.

(Time expired)

World Water DayMs O’NEILL (Kallangur—ALP) (11.55 am): International World Water Day is held annually on 22

March as a means of focusing attention on the importance of fresh water and advocating for thesustainable management of freshwater resources. This year United Nations Water is dedicating WorldWater Day to the theme of water quality, reflecting its importance alongside quantity, in watermanagement. The campaign is designed to raise awareness of sustaining healthy ecosystems andhuman wellbeing through addressing the increasing water-quality challenges in water management andto raise the profile of water quality by encouraging governments, organisations, communities andindividuals around the world to actively engage in proactively addressing water quality—for example, inpollution prevention, clean-up and restoration, and innovative solutions to reduce threats on waterquality.


In previous years water scarcity has been the focus, highlighting the increasing significance ofwater scarcity worldwide and the need for increased integration and cooperation to ensure sustainable,efficient and equitable management of scarce water resources, both at international and local levels. Weare so lucky to live in Australia, particularly Queensland, where we have clean drinking water andreliable supplies for domestic, recreational and industrial use.

We are so used to our access to water that we no longer recognise just what a luxury it is to haveclean water running from our taps and how few other citizens of the world enjoy that luxury. A hugeproportion of the world’s population does not have access to either running or potable water and suffersthe disease and poor health propagated by that poor water quality. Some 1.1 billion people have noaccess to improved water supply and 2.4 billion will be without basic sanitation by 2015.

Our government has faced the challenge of both water quality and supply, and I am proud of theplanning and investment that protects both into the future. We are on the driest continent on earth andwe have moved to protect future supplies and quality. We have the South East Queensland WaterStrategy, which sets out the means to ensure a secure water supply over the next 50 years, to supportour lifestyles and to provide for our water use needs as well as the needs of the environment. Thestrategy includes a water supply guarantee, which is to be met by a range of supply infrastructure, suchas dams, desalination, purified recycled water, and a grid linking them up, as well as an ongoingdemand management program.

The South-East Queensland water grid is a region-wide, long-term water supply scheme thatprovides a sustainable water infrastructure network for the South-East Queensland region. The projectwas the largest urban response to the drought in Australia, which was severely affecting water suppliesin Brisbane and its surrounds. The basic component of the project is a 450-kilometre network of two-way pipelines that will connect areas that have an oversupply of water to those areas lacking water,facilitating water sharing across the South-East Queensland region.

There are also major protections in place for water quality. As announced by Minister Robertsonat a recent water conference, South-East Queenslanders will, for the first time, receive regular reportson the quality of their bulk drinking water under a Queensland government initiative. When South-EastQueenslanders turn on their taps, they want to have confidence that their water not only looks clean andclear but also is healthy and safe to drink. These reports will provide South-East Queenslanders withclear information on water quality management.

The chair of the National Health and Medical Research Council’s Water Quality AdvisoryCommittee, Don Bursill, said the initiative kept South-East Queensland at the forefront of water qualitymanagement around the world. The report covers the period between June 2009 and January this yearand shows that bulk drinking water in South-East Queensland complies with the National Health andMedical Research Council’s Australian drinking water guidelines of 2004 and showed that more than8,300 individual water tests were carried out on bulk drinking water.

We also have the South East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership, a government-community collaboration committed to improving the health of catchments and rivers in South-EastQueensland. Funded through the Department of Environment and Resource Management, thepartnership coordinates the efforts of over 70 partners including local councils, researchers, educators,and numerous industry and community contributors. The Department of Environment and ResourceManagement is managing the Queensland government’s $20 million investment in the strategy’sactions to reduce water pollution and restore degraded waterways. Preventing water contamination istypically cheaper than cleaning up after a contamination.

There is a huge database of information available from government websites to assist us all. Iurge everyone to look for tips that we can all utilise, from protecting our watercourses to not littering andcleaning up after our pets. We can be proud of our initiatives to protect and provide clean water to everyhome, but just as importantly in the week where World Water Day is celebrated we should be thankful—thankful that we are so used to clean running water in our houses that we no longer even consider it aluxury, that instead of treating it with respect we have to be reminded that water is a precious resourceand not to waste it by forced water restrictions. We should also take some time this week to imagine thelives of some of our neighbours and their struggles to access this really basic necessity.

Office for SeniorsMrs MENKENS (Burdekin—LNP) (12.00 pm): I do not come into this House presuming the needs

and desires of a newborn baby are the same as those of a 30-year-old—that those two people share thesame quality of life, concerns or daily stresses. Such a presumption would be ridiculous and insulting toall peoples in that age group, their needs, their desires and their realities. So it is with disappointmentand sadness that I sit here every time I hear the minister stand in this House and talk about thewonderful things she is doing for seniors. Discussion papers and talkfests are not improving the qualityof life for our older Queenslanders. There is no quick fix for simultaneously resolving the issues of a frail,isolated older person who relies on community services for their independence in their own home or ababy boomer who is in the last years of their self-employment looking forward to retirement and family


plans. The range of needs, of abilities, of experiences, of concerns among this age group is never goingto be sufficiently addressed in a discussion paper which will then sit on the minister’s desk marked ‘Jobdone’. We need more than talking. We need more than a name on an office door.

There is no Office for Seniors in this state, regardless of whatever terminology the minister likes touse. There is no government office that advocates and lobbies for the interests of seniors to improvetransport, health, employment, volunteering and family issues. There is no Office for Seniors in this statethat our seniors can confidently say pays recognition to their efforts and contributions and assists themas their voice in government and the community. The contributions of seniors, whether they are babyboomers or 90 years old, enhance our community beyond value through their roles as volunteers oremployers, community leaders or carers, grandparents or generational advocates. Baby boomers andother seniors have built this state and paid their taxes all their working lives and deserve better than thisgovernment is giving them.

There are a number of non-government organisations that do a wonderful job in raising the profileof seniors. But after years and years of dedication and work, they are still not recognised by thisgovernment and still have to undertake the fight daily to have seniors’ issues recognised in this stateand, sadly, in this House. We need an Office for Seniors to ensure the best possible quality of life in thisstate for the seniors of today and the seniors of tomorrow. It has been a fact of life for years that ourcommunity is ageing. It has not come as a surprise to our community, but our government seems tohave just woken up to the fact that 40 per cent of the constituency is now in the group that is termed‘seniors’. The government has been caught unprepared and, even worse, it is doing very little—it isdoing nothing—to prepare for the future either. The time for patronising words from this minister haspassed.

On behalf of the LNP, I offer my promise to seniors across the state that I will continue toadvocate for an office of seniors—an office of seniors that is committed to looking at employment,health, the cost of living, the quality of living, transport, community involvement and a raft of other issuesfrom a specifically seniors’ point of view. I offer this promise to those who are aged 80, those in their 60sand 70s and those who are nearing their 50th birthday. I vow never to presume that because they all orsoon will fall under the heading of ‘seniors’ their vast range of needs and concerns can be confused andcollated into one simple list of ‘one size fits all’ condescending dot points, and that is what thisgovernment is currently doing—putting all seniors into ‘one size fits all’ condescending dot points—because we are looking at a span of 30 years or more across all of our senior groups.

Until we as a community offer our seniors the best possible opportunities for engagement, we willnot derive the benefits of their experience and their contribution. All of our seniors have made our statewhat it is today, and their active participation in our community will continue to enrich our society. Weneed to ensure that participation is encouraged and enabled. There is no stereotype that can be appliedto seniors as a group or even to the different age groups that make up the group. What this governmenthas failed to recognise yet again is that a label does not diminish the individual standing behind thatname. Behind the label are hundreds of thousands of lives and personalities and dreams and wishes,each one deserving of attention. Behind the label are lifetimes of contributions and works thoroughlyworthy of recognition and appreciation.

(Time expired)

CarersMrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (12.05 pm): The Bligh government is committed to

supporting carers because it values the contribution carers make not only to the lives of people theycare for but the community in general. The Queensland government formally recognised the significantcontribution of carers with the enactment of the Carers (Recognition) Act 2008. The act recognises thesupport and care more than half a million Queenslanders give on a daily basis to family members, lovedones, friends and neighbours who may have a disability, mental illness, chronic condition, terminalillness or frailty. As the local member for Mount Ommaney and parliamentary secretary to the Ministerfor Disability Services, I acknowledge the part played by carers and the immense benefits their unpaidefforts bring to our community.

The act, which came into effect on 4 May 2009, includes a Queensland carers charter andprovides for the appointment of the Queensland Carers Advisory Council to give carers a voice onissues that affect them. Last Thursday, on behalf of the Minister for Disability Services and MulticulturalAffairs, the Hon. Annastacia Palaszczuk MP, I attended the second meeting of the Queensland CarersAdvisory Council. The council focused its attention on key issues of concern, including building thecapacity of carers and their access to information, the challenges faced by older and younger carers,carer participation in education and employment, and services and supports for carers. Councilmembers also provided valuable advice that will help promote awareness of compliance by publicauthorities, including government departments, with the Queensland carers charter. Under the Carers(Recognition) Act 2008, public authorities are required to reflect the charter’s principles when providingservices that impact on carers and the persons for whom they care.


As members can see, the Carers Advisory Council has a key role in improving services for carersacross the state. It will now turn its attention to developing a plan of action for the period up to 30 June2014. Council members were selected on the basis of their awareness and understanding of thechallenges faced by carers and their strong community networks. There is an incredible wealth ofknowledge and experience between the members of the council, and I am confident that they will beexcellent advocates for the carers of Queensland. I am also confident that the council’s contribution,together with other initiatives, will make Queensland a better place not only for carers but for thecommunity in general.

It was great to be able to talk to and hear the views of council members firsthand. They includepeople such as Deputy Chair Toni Dunshea, who has been a carer and advocate for the rights of carersand people with a disability for the last 30 years; Merle Edwards, who has been a carer for 47 yearsinvolved in the establishment of education, employment, accommodation and respite services in thecommunity for people with a disability; Carolyn McDiarmid, who has been a carer for three generationsof family members and who has considerable knowledge about balancing carer responsibilities withemployment; Debra Cottrell from Carers Queensland, the peak carers body in Queensland which offersservices and support to Queensland’s unpaid carers; Kathryn Treston from Mamre, which supportsfamilies to plan and build rich, meaningful and inclusive lives for their family member with a disability;and Majorie Bloor from ARAFMI, which provides support services for families caring for people with amental health issue and/or psychiatric disability. There are also four government representatives whohave been selected from departments that play a significant and positive role in the provision of carerservices in Queensland. They are Patrea Walton from the Department of Education and Training;Professor Andrew Wilson, the Deputy Director-General of Queensland Health; Phil Clarke from theDepartment of Justice and Attorney-General; and Michael Hogan, the Deputy Director-General of theDepartment of Communities and chair of the council.

I commend council members for their passion and enthusiasm and for their valuable contributionto advancing the interests of carers and I look forward to working with them all for some time to come.Finally, I take the opportunity to acknowledge the Australian government for its introduction of the CarerRecognition Bill 2010. This bill represents a significant effort to enshrine into law the Australiangovernment’s national recognition of the exceptional contributions made by carers across the country.

Education

Dr FLEGG (Moggill—LNP) (12.10 pm): I am glad to have this opportunity to speak about theLNP’s response to the government’s green paper on education, titled A flying start for Queenslandchildren. When Professor Geoff Masters released his report, I released the LNP’s response—I mightsay long before the government released its response. From the minister’s statements in the House thismorning, it seems that he spends an awful lot of time googling LNP websites looking for ideas. A verygood idea for the minister might be for him to improve his googling technique, because I posted theLNP’s response to the Geoff Masters report on the LNP website—on the home page to make it easy forthe minister to find—and it still does not appear that he was able to find it.

I am pleased to make this response here today, because it is important that the LNP makes sucha response. I note that in the Queensland Teachers Union’s response to the green paper it said thatthere is a long history of organisational reforms in education that have served little purpose other than todemonstrate that a particular government is ‘doing something’ about education. That is one of myconcerns about the government’s green paper. We saw it with the prep year—an idea that we supportedbut it lost some of its benefit through excessive class sizes and the absence of full-time teacher aides. Itis all right to have the idea but the execution has to be delivered properly.

The LNP is deeply committed to Queensland providing the world’s best in the area of education.What could be more important? Furthermore, the LNP is willing to support positive initiatives from thegovernment. Although the government is generally not willing to consider ideas put forward by the LNP,as we have seen in a number of areas, the offer stands to support the government, where possible, ongood ideas in education. The government’s green paper deals with the issue of reading. I think there issome $8 million for that, most of which looks to me like it is to be spent on advertising. It is referred to bythe Queensland Teachers Union as reform on the cheap. I think the last time we heard somebodyadvocating reading to children it was Mark Latham. So this issue is recycled Mark Latham. Obviously,the LNP supports the principle of reading, but if using volunteers in schools is not based on an initiativefrom that school and from individual teachers, I can tell members now that it will not be successful.

The most contentious area of the paper is the move of year 7—40,000 state school students areto be moved into high schools in response to the national curriculum. In this discussion paper—so-called—it is actually a fait accompli. It is a very high-risk strategy. The government talks about buildingand capital expenditure of $300 million. That appears to me, and others, to be inadequate. The physicalenvironment of schools is very important and those 40,000 state school students are going to needclassrooms, music rooms, science labs and the like.


But even more important is the quality of the education—the specialist high school teachers todeliver it and the intensive support. There is no mention even of recurrent expenditure or of the numbersof extra high school teachers who will be needed. In Queensland, children in that year are muchyounger than their counterparts. I notice that the government is trying a bit of sleight of hand on thisissue. They will still be younger on entering high school in Queensland than children in the other states.Although the Gold Coast Bulletin misquoted me, saying that I was calling for a test, I support theprinciple of parents and teachers assessing children for their readiness to enter high school at thisyoung age. I note that the Queensland Teachers Union made a similar call.

No mention is made in this paper about middle schooling. No mention is made in this paper aboutthe assistance that will be available to the private sector, which will suffer a decline in enrolment in theirprimary schools and increases in enrolment in their secondary schools. This is a very complex andcostly area. I will post our response shortly on my website and the LNP’s website. I hope the ministercan find it.

Green and Healthy QueenslandMs FARMER (Bulimba—ALP) (12.15 pm): The Bligh Labor government is committed to a green

and healthy Queensland. I have spoken numerous times in this House about the many ways in whichthis commitment is being rolled out in the Bulimba electorate—ranging from the exciting partnershipswith local businesses to achieve water and energy efficiencies, to the take-up of the government’sClimateSmart Home Service, to the rollout of the Find your 30 and the Go for 2 and 5 campaigns toencourage healthy and active living and, of course, to the encouragement that the government isoffering to local residents to forgo their car when they travel to and from work and to take up public oractive transport options instead.

Members will know of the government’s excellent TravelSmart program, which encourageshouseholds to consider sustainable travel options. The $22.6 million program recognises that, althoughit is important for the government to continue its actions to encourage sustainable growth, individualscan also make changes that can make a big difference. Households in the Bulimba electorate havebeen given the opportunity to do just that and have participated with great enthusiasm since theprogram was introduced in the area at the end of last year. By the end of the TravelSmart program in2011, 180,000 households in Brisbane’s south and in Ipswich, 72,000 households on the Gold Coastand 72,000 households on the Sunshine Coast and Caboolture will also have received the invitation toparticipate in the TravelSmart program. By that stage the government hopes to see a level of householdparticipation in the program that contributes to a I0 per cent reduction in private vehicle use on ourregion’s roads and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of over 100,000 tonnes.

Although we know that this program effects excellent outcomes, there is only so much that wecan encourage individuals to do if we are not at the same time providing the infrastructure to supporttheir intentions and actions. That is why initiatives such as the government’s Cycle Network Programare so important. This program was established in 2006 when the Queensland government allocated$556 million to be distributed over 20 years to develop an SEQ regional cycle network. The mainobjective is to develop facilities that will encourage more sustainable transport modes, such as cycling,walking and the use of public transport. I am pleased to see that these funds have been allocated tosignificant projects in the Bulimba electorate.

As part of the massive Gateway Upgrade Project, Queensland Motorways Ltd, in liaison with theDepartment of Transport and Main Roads, is delivering a shared 4.5-metre pedestrian and cycle facilityon the duplicate Sir Leo Hielscher Bridge. An amount of $12 million has been allocated for the cyclewayon the Gateway in this financial year, with a $35 million total allocation across the life of the project. Thisshared facility, which is being delivered and is scheduled to be operational this year, will start at LyttonRoad on the southern side of the Brisbane River, ending on the northern side at Kingsford Smith Drive.The state government has committed capital grants from the Cycle Network Program to the BrisbaneCity Council to deliver additional bikeway connections to the south of the Gateway Upgrade Project.Capital grants for 2009-10 include $650,000 to deliver a bikeway connecting Lytton Road to the MurarrieRecreation Reserve via Creek Road and Garret Street past Murrarie State School, then followingRailway Terrace; $550,000 for an off-road bike path along Lytton Road from Creek Road to JunctionRoad; and $110,000 to develop on-road cycle lanes across Queensport Road south between LyttonRoad and the Murarrie Recreation Reserve. The government is continuing to work with the BrisbaneCity Council, QML and key stakeholders to ensure a consistent and coordinated approach to deliveringbikeway connectivity to the southern side of the Brisbane River.

The cycle network and the TravelSmart programs encompass a suite of other initiatives toencourage individuals to make healthy and sustainable travel and sustainable travel choices. A recentand prominent example of those initiatives is the government’s role as principal sponsor for Bike Weeklast week. Bike Week is Queensland’s major celebration of all things cycling—whether that be for sport,recreation or fun—and was very ably facilitated by the enthusiastic Bicycle Queensland, with $49,000 infinancial support provided by the Queensland government. This amount was in addition to the funding


that was provided by the Premier for her Premier’s Bike Week Challenge, which offered 50 bikes toQueensland’s students from years 5 to 7. Then there was Ride to Work Day. It was excellent to be partof a team of MPs from both sides of this House, led by the Premier and the Minister for Transport, whocycled up to King George Square to show their support for an important lifestyle choice.

Community initiatives cannot be truly successful without the support of local advocates and in thisregard I particularly acknowledge the efforts and passion of people in my local community such as ChrisDonnelly from Bicycle Riders and members of the East Bicycle Users Group, Rolf Kuelsen, HeatherHorne and Peter Berkeley and also Susan Thompson and Mel Berkeley, all of whom are not onlycommitted to promoting cycling but also have given me much personal support in championing thecause of active transport. I confirm my personal commitment to this important policy area and lookforward to seeing many more permutations of the government’s current initiatives around it.

Kingaroy, Underground Coal Gasification ProjectMrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (12.20 pm): Last Thursday I attended a meeting of the Kingaroy

Concerned Residents Group held to discuss Cougar Energy’s underground coal gasification project inKingaroy. Approximately 80 residents attended the meeting and many questions were raised. Concernswere raised about the lack of independent information provided. I believe Cougar Energy explainedquite well the pros and cons of the project and the process that will occur. That information is seen asbeing tainted by an industry bias and therefore people have many concerns and are prepared to raisethem and raise them quite loudly.

Present at that meeting were not only concerned farmers and local residents but also TobyHutcheon from the Queensland Conservation Council. He put forward the council’s opposition to anykind of mining in Queensland, instead advocating for alternative energy sources such as wind and solar.His purpose for being there was to outline the risk of underground coal gasification to the region, thepeople and the underground water resources. Larissa Waters, an environmental lawyer and Senatecandidate for the Queensland Greens, was also present. As this is a federal election year, we know fullwell that any opportunity to get a little air time will be taken by any candidate. She spoke about thegrounds on which people could oppose this project and whether or not compensation would be paid ifthe water was polluted.

There was no positive alternative independent view put forward; it was either opposition ornothing. That caused me concern. It is my understanding that people who have concerns are notnecessarily opposed to this project; they just want independent information. I ask the minister to releaseany independent information that she may have in regard to this particular project. The concerns areprimarily around contamination of groundwater and land. There have been other pilot projects butnobody can find any ongoing projects. They have all been pilot projects that have not progressed orthere have been negative reports with regard to them. When one hunts for information it is difficult to findanything but negativity.

I have two reports which I seek leave to table. One is to do with the US EPA. It is quite frightening.One section refers to potential and documented damages to US DWS, which is underground sources ofdrinking water. It is strongly of the opinion that there is a real and genuine risk and people need to bevery concerned about the whole project. It goes on to outline other projects. If there is information thatthe minister has that would rebut this we would be more than happy to read it. Tabled paper: Documents including a copy of the United States Environmental Protection Agency report dated September 1999titled ‘The Class V Underground Injection Control Study, Volume 13, In-situ Fossil Fuel Recovery Wells’ and a memorandum dated1 March 2010 to Mrs Dorothy Pratt from Dr R Boothroyd regarding underground coal gasification [1932].

Cougar’s trial pilot is right next to Kingaroy. I can see the pilot flame at night from my house. It isvery close. The prevailing winds are from that direction. People are rightly and justifiably concerned.This is prime, A1 agricultural land that needs to be preserved. We do not have a lot of it. We do have alot of coal elsewhere. The coal involved in this project is second-rate coal. It is coal that the miningcompanies do not want to bring out because it is not worth their while. I would appreciate anyinformation from the government on why it has deemed it reasonable to put the pilot project so close tothe township of Kingaroy. We will fight this if we need to. If it is okay we will support it. We do not want itused as a political tool. We want it based on right and proper independent information.

Go CardMr RYAN (Morayfield—ALP) (12.25 pm): I rise to inform the House of some important

developments in the area of public transport for Queenslanders and the people of the Morayfield stateelectorate. The Bligh Labor government is investing in public transport service provision andinfrastructure whilst continuing the rollout of the go card ticketing system. The go card provides manybenefits to consumers and public transport planners. I have been a go card user for a number of years.My family, my friends and I continue to enjoy the benefits of go card and are strong advocates for itsplace in our public transport network. The go card is quicker than the paper ticket equivalent becausewith the go card it is not necessary to queue for a ticket. The go card is great value because it is 30 per


23 Mar 2010 Land Tax Bill 955

cent cheaper than the equivalent single trip paper ticket price. Moreover, frequent use discounts of afurther 50 per cent apply if go card users use their go card more than 10 times a week. In addition, gocard users get a 10 per cent discount on all trips in off-peak travel periods.

The go card is convenient because there is no need to buy separate tickets for different trips andit can be used on buses, ferries and trains. If a person chooses to register their go card then they canalso top it up online and check their journey details. The go card is easy to use. People need to simplytouch on at the beginning of their journey and touch off at the end. The trip fare is automaticallydeducted from the card balance. The go card is smarter because it uses the latest technology tocalculate the cheapest trip cost for an individual’s entire journey, including up to three transfers andirrespective of the distance travelled or the type of transport used.

The go card is reusable and it is easy to top up the credit balance. The credit balance does notexpire and users can choose how much money they want to put on their go card. The go card is safeand secure because after registration the go card can be locked down to protect the credit balance if thego card is stolen or lost. It is important to emphasise to users of the go card that they must always touchon at the card reader at the beginning of their journey and touch off at the card reader at the end of theirjourney. Failure to do this may mean that the user may be travelling without a valid ticket or will becharged a fixed fare amount for the journey.

The House will be interested to hear that the number of retail outlets for the go card continues toincrease. Go cards can be purchased by a variety of means including online, at selected shop retailers,at selected train stations, by calling the TransLink hotline or by post. A new public transport farestructure commenced on 4 January 2010. The restructure will encourage greater use of the go card, willfund more public transport services in South-East Queensland and will redress the current taxpayerfunded fare imbalance. This is the first fare restructure since 2008. Usually, fares change each year. Asalready highlighted, the go card has many benefits: it is quicker, easier, safer and more efficient. It alsoprovides public transport planners with important patronage demand and use information. Further, gocard fares are significantly cheaper than the equivalent paper ticket fare.

Residents of the Morayfield state electorate are already seeing an increased investment in publictransport infrastructure and services by the Bligh Labor government. In fact, I am very pleased to seethat the Bligh Labor government is delivering on our election commitment to provide more car parkingspaces at Burpengary train station and Morayfield train station. The additional car parking willencourage more people onto public transport, will reduce pressure on car parking infrastructure inneighbouring areas and will reduce car parking congestion on local roads. Burpengary station willbenefit from an extension of the existing car park on the western side of the train line, providingapproximately 90 new spaces, as well as upgrades to lighting and closed-circuit television systems.

When the car parking works are complete, Burpengary train station will have over 500 parkingspaces for commuters. Meanwhile, the Morayfield train station will have extended its existing car parkson both sides of the line to gain approximately 90 more parking spaces. Construction at Burpengary andMorayfield train stations is expected to be completed this financial year. I look forward to continuing towork with the Bligh Labor government to deliver a greater investment in public transport serviceprovision and infrastructure for the people of the Morayfield state electorate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! Before I close matters of public interest, themember for Nanango indicated that she would seek leave to table certain documents. She has tabledthe documents without leave being sought. Is leave granted?

Leave granted.

LAND TAX BILL

First Reading

Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer and Minister for Employment andEconomic Development) (12.30 pm): I present a bill for an act about land tax and for related purposes. Ipresent the explanatory notes, and I move—That the bill be now read a first time.

Question put—That the bill be now read a first time.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.

Tabled paper: Land Tax Bill [1933].Tabled paper: Land Tax Bill, explanatory notes [1934].



956 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 23 Mar 2010

Second ReadingHon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer and Minister for Employment and

Economic Development) (12.30 pm): I move—That the bill be now read a second time.

The Land Tax Act was enacted in 1915 and many of the core substantive and exemptionprovisions have been in the legislation from the outset. In the almost 100 years since then, there havebeen numerous amendments in response to various changes in policy and commercial practices. Todaythe legislation reflects outdated drafting practices.

As part of the Office of State Revenue’s ongoing program of legislation modernisation, stage 1 ofmodernising land tax legislation occurred last year when the standard administration provisions of theTaxation Administration Act 2001 were extended to land tax. This bill completes modernisation byrepealing the Land Tax Act 1915 and replacing it with modern legislation drafted in plain English andrestructured to simplify the provisions.

The bill retains the existing land tax base, policy and tax rates. This is a rewrite of the existing lawand practice only. Consistent with longstanding arrangements, land tax will continue to be based on thevalue of land determined under the Valuation of Land Act 1944.

A number of beneficial changes are being incorporated in the bill. Capping arrangements whichapplied for three financial years ending 2009-10 are being extended for 2010-11. Under thesearrangements, the value on which land tax is levied is limited to 150 per cent of the value which appliedfor the previous year. A new extended payment option will be available from 2010-11 onwards, asannounced in the 2009-10 state budget. Taxpayers will have the option of paying land tax by either asingle payment within 90 days of assessment issue or three equal instalments within 45, 90 and 150days of assessment issue.

The current land tax legislation contains an outdated anti-avoidance provision. As part of themodernisation process, this bill includes a new general anti-avoidance provision modelled oncontemporary provisions in other state and Commonwealth taxation legislation, including the Duties Act2001. This will provide greater certainty about the types of avoidance schemes targeted by theprovision.

The Duties Act 2001, the Payroll Tax Act 1971 and the Land Tax Act 1915 each contain similarprovisions providing tax exemptions for charitable institutions in certain circumstances. This billsimplifies these provisions by moving to the Taxation Administration Act 2001 the provisions aboutwhich institutions qualify for exemption. This will provide a single registration which will reduce red tapefor these institutions. The bill also includes consequential amendments to the Duties Act 2001 and thePayroll Tax Act 1971 reflecting this change. Other conditions relating to these exemptions will remain inthe relevant revenue statute.

A number of significant drafting changes in the bill will make the law clearer and easier fortaxpayers to understand. This will make the law more certain, assisting both compliance andadministration. For example, the current law makes a distinction between exemptions and deductions,both of which have the effect of ensuring land tax is not imposed on the relevant property. The billeliminates the distinction and replaces it with a concept of exempt land. In addition, all exemptions arelocated in one part of the bill.

The bill also makes a number of consequential amendments to other acts to reflect the repeal ofthe Land Tax Act 1915 and its replacement by this bill, when enacted. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Nicholls, adjourned.

REVENUE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second ReadingResumed from 9 March (see p. 660), on motion of Mr Fraser—

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—LNP) (12.34 pm): Last night I read through the legislation and, whilecontemplating it, I had an unnerving experience. One is almost reminded of the old joke that begins ‘Iwas on my way to the Colosseum’. At about 8.15 or 8.30 last night I jumped into the lift on level 9 and,obviously prying around to see what he could get into, I saw the Treasurer, as well as the UnderTreasurer, Mr Bradley, and a host of other Treasury advisers.

Mr Finn: They were trying to find the birthday party.

23 Mar 2010 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 957

Mr NICHOLLS: They had been up for a birthday party, exactly. As I walked in, the Treasurer said,‘Well, this is weird.’ I have to say that it was one of those rare occasions when I did very much agreewith him. More than anything else, I wondered where they were coming from. I did wonder if I had theopportunity to ask some questions about budget planning being undertaken or whether there was someother cunning plan going on. I will reveal the secrets of the lift at a later time.

This bill is an omnibus bill dealing with 11 statutes in total. It amends six revenue statutes and fiveother statutes primarily dealing with the asset sales process. It comes in two sections. When the bill ispassed, much of the work undertaken under its auspices will ‘protect the revenue’, as the old sayinggoes. That is, it will protect revenue collection. I make it clear that the LNP supports the proper paymentof taxes by all taxpayers. If everyone pays their fair share, no-one has to pay more than they otherwiseought to.

It enshrines in legislation administrative rulings that have been in place for some considerabletime. I guess as we go through the question will have to be asked: why have the administrative rulingsthat have been made by executive fiat by the commissioner of revenue taken so long to find their wayinto legislation? Is there a reason or is it simply a matter of convenience to bring them all under onepiece of legislation? The bill will streamline debt collection practices across the various revenue acts bybringing them under a single taxation act—that is, the Taxation Administration Act, which was amendedonly in the last 12 months—and makes consequential changes to facilitate all of those.

The second purpose of the legislation is to make transitional arrangements to facilitate the assetsales process. Essentially those changes will facilitate the continuation of the superannuationarrangements of employees who are employed by those assets that are being sold so that they will beable to continue in the QSuper scheme, as I understand it. It will also cover some other employeesshould there be any changes in their employment arrangements. Predominantly, it looks after peoplewho will be employed by private enterprise after the asset sales.

The bill also amends the Infrastructure Investment (Asset Restructuring and Disposal) Act. Thatis the bill which became an act at four o’clock in the morning of the week in which we debated thebudget and which put in place the powers to facilitate the government’s privatisation agenda. Theseamendments are another attempt to perpetrate a con on the people of Queensland. This follows thestatement made in December last year by the Premier and the Treasurer that this is a privatisation thatdoes not really involve selling everything off because we are only giving a 99-year lease, so the right totoll on the Gateway and Logan motorways will only be a 99-year lease and the state of Queensland willstill own the underlying asset.

It is the same with Forestry Plantations Queensland, where the statement was made that what isbeing sold is only the right to gather the timber as opposed to the underlying land, and similarly withQueensland Rail. That is really a furphy. As anyone would know if they had observed the privatisation ofassets, a 99-year lease is as good as giving away the farm, which is what is occurring here. We onlyneed to look at the operators of Brisbane Airport to understand that is the case. That land is still ownedby the Commonwealth, but the business and everything that occurs on it, including the development andthe borrowings that fund that development, is based on a leasehold of that property. So the LNP will beopposing this section of the bill in relation to the changes to the Property Law Act that facilitate the saleand disposal of the assets by lease rather than by, if you like, the freehold transfer of the wholeundertaking and ownership.

This sale process has been a rushed process. It was rushed when it was brought to the budget in2009. It was done without the consent of the voters of Queensland. In fact, it was done almost to spitethe voters of Queensland and particularly, so far as the sale of Queensland Rail is concerned, there aresufficient concerns about the model being proposed by the government to oppose it in terms of its long-term economic benefit to the people of Queensland. In that respect, I note we are in good company. Thefederal Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson, not once but twice last week indicated thatthe federal government has very real concerns with the proposed manner of the disposal of QueenslandRail—if you like, the single model, the one big company model that is being proposed by thegovernment, selling the above the rail assets and the below the rail assets in order to create a big entityso that there is a monument to the Premier and this government. They will create a huge entity that isnot in any way as efficient as it might otherwise be and it will be to the detriment of future generations ofQueenslanders who would rely on a efficient rail network system rather than just a big company runninga rail system.

Yesterday we found that the federal infrastructure minister, Anthony Albanese, also indicated, asreported in today’s Australian Financial Review, the concerns that the federal government has about theproposed model being sold. In fact, he went so far as to say that he would have no problems with theAustralian Rail Track Corporation being involved in any offer or proposal that miners or groups of minersmight be prepared to make to the government in order to, if you like, put an alternative process in place.So there are very real concerns held by the federal government and many others in industry and thosewith experience in privatisations about the model that is being proposed. Not only is the privatisationbad and we oppose the government’s privatisation process; we also oppose this model that it is goingwith because of the lack of clarity in the way it is being done.


The bill also introduces two changes to revenue and grant legislation. The bill reduces the cap onthe First Home Owner Grant Scheme. The value at which the First Home Owner Grant Scheme cuts outhas now been reduced from $1 million to $750,000. I am probably of the view that there is not a greatmany people who would be accessing the First Home Owner Grant Scheme in the $750,000 to$1 million range. Unfortunately, we have been unable to organise a briefing at this stage, so this is aquestion that I would have otherwise asked at a briefing, but I put it out there for the Treasurer now togive an indication of the number of people in that range who would have accessed the First HomeOwner Grant Scheme. I have to say that, if the policy purpose of the scheme is to get people to invest intheir first home, it ought to be done non-discriminatorily.

I would expect that there would not be a great number of people who would be taking advantageof the grant over $750,000. But there are people who may choose to save and buy their first home in anarea where properties are quite expensive. Perhaps they are people who have not owned a housebefore but have managed to work their way through the system so that their first home would be over$750,000. I think unnecessarily reducing the cut-off value from $1 million to $750,000 on the basis thatother jurisdictions have done it seems to me to be somewhat capricious and somewhat envious.

The bill also makes a change to the Duties Act to provide relief from stamp duty to facilitate therestructure of stapled entities.

Mr Fraser: ‘Top hatting’.Mr NICHOLLS: An exemption will be available for so-called ‘top-hatting’ restructures of land rich

corporations, listed public unit trusts and widely held public unit trusts. I am looking forward to theTreasurer demonstrating, with a graph, why it is called ‘top hatting’—the interposition of another trustbelow the unit trusts and the investors. When you look at it in a diagram, it goes up and up and up;hence the term ‘top hatting’ on the way through. I have to say that in discussions with my colleagues theunderstanding of ‘top hatting’ was not high on the list of priorities. It was not necessarily on my list ofpriorities either. But the bill states that the requirements for the Commonwealth’s capital gains taxrollover relief and other conditions must be met in order to qualify for the ‘top-hatting’ exemptions thatapply.

The question that does come to mind is whether it would, for example, take effect on somethinglike the BrisConnections structure, which is made up of stapled securities all the way through withvarious trustees. I think there are two trusts there that have stapled securities on them. So, given therestructuring that is being considered for BrisConnections and the take out of the small shareholders,we may see some form of ‘top hatting’ going on there or it may be that some other commercialarrangement is being considered in relation to the BrisConnections structure.

The bill makes a number of small changes to various acts. It effectively allows Suncorp to shift itshead office to Sydney. In fact, Suncorp’s registered office, I understand, is now in New South Wales; it isno longer in Queensland. When the merger of QIDC and Suncorp was put together preparatory to theMetway merger, there were some residency qualifications. A certain number of the directors of themerged entity had to reside in Queensland. That was effectively a way, if you like, of keeping the headoffice here. The market has changed and people’s sophistication and understanding of the market haschanged sufficiently so that we can accommodate this request by shareholders—which is effectivelywhat it is—with a relative degree of maturity. The opposition has no problems with making that changeto the residency qualifications. I note that there is still a requirement for the managing director to beordinarily resident in Queensland. The question to the Treasurer is: what is he going to do if themanaging director is not ordinarily resident in Queensland? How is he going to enforce that? Is he goingto put an ankle tag on the managing director to make sure that he spends at least 50 per cent of his timenorth of the border?

The bill also provides finally for ratification of agreements with New Zealand to be done bysubordinate legislation rather than by an act of parliament—that is, the Trans-Tasman MutualRecognition (Queensland) Act, another piece of legislation that is of vital daily import to the people ofQueensland, even though they may not recognise it themselves. There are a number of changes thatare being made by this fairly weighty tome. I will go through some of them now.

The Community Ambulance Cover Act is amended to clarify the exemption of the Commonwealthgovernment from the community ambulance levy. It is obviously to reflect the constitutionalarrangements that the state cannot tax the Commonwealth. It clarifies how that operates particularly inthe flowthrough as it goes through shopping centres and other areas like that. It also clarifies theavailability of refunds for cheques that are dishonoured or credit payments that are dishonoured. Thecost of administering that scheme can be charged by the electricity companies against the total revenuethat they would otherwise receive, which I think makes perfect sense.

The Duties Act is amended to provide for changes to the duties that are covered by the DutiesAct, such as transfer duty, land rich duty and insurance duty. The bill makes a number of changes to thisact. We have discussed the ‘top hatting’ of stapled securities. ‘Top hatting’ refers to the interposition of a


head trust between stapled entities and their existing security holders. Previously such an arrangementwould attract transfer duty as it was a dutiable transaction. However, where the arrangement reflects arollover or restructure of a number of related party trusts, where the unit holders or beneficial owners ofthe asset and their relationship with that asset have not changed—so effectively the ownership does notchange; the same people are still the owners at the end of it; there is no transfer of the beneficialinterest—an exemption to transfer duty will now apply. These changes stem from Commonwealthchanges to allow a rollover exemption of capital gains tax for ‘top-hatting’ restructures.

On 25 September 2007, the then federal government introduced a new subdivision 124-Q in theIncome Tax Assessment Act 1997, which took effect from 1 July 2006. That exemption provides rolloverrelief for CGT purposes when a unit trust is interposed between the existing holders of interests instapled entities and those stapled entities. The interposed unit trust may be either a new trust or youmay be able to slot one of the existing trusts above it in order to create that interposed entity. The mainreason given at the time for this change was to help Australian listed property trusts—and this is pre-GFC, so this is when people still thought there were some opportunities to invest overseas and had themoney to be able to do so, particularly in the case of property trusts—compete in overseas takeoverbids. In a scrip bid for a United States real estate investment trust, an Australian stapled group would notbe able to give full rollover relief to the existing investors in that real estate investment trust.Restructuring under a single trust solves that problem. This is all pretty complicated, I have to say. It isprobably fairly rare as well, but nonetheless it is a good thing.

Another benefit is a significant saving in compliance costs such as auditing and financial reportingand management fees for responsible entities. Instead of having three or more of these responsibleentities, you can bring them under one responsible entity. That can save hundreds of thousands ofdollars for investors in those unit trusts.

Another benefit arising from the capacity to restructure—to be able to top hat—is to have agreater market for the investment units in those unit trusts. Although their nature is understood bysophisticated Australian investors who do not have a problem with them and the people who sell thoseinterests who do not have a problem with them, some foreign investors find them difficult to understandand their reporting is not as simple as it might otherwise be. I cannot understand why people would findthe stapled securities trust business at all difficult to understand, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure that littledissertation has made it abundantly clear to you how it is meant to work and to other members of theHouse.

The most significant benefit for most stapled groups is likely to relate to capital management. It isharder to manage the allocation of capital between a number of members of a stapled group than it is ifthere is a single head entity. Basically, one entity makes it easier to manage the capital structure. As Ihave said previously, the exemption is conditional on the restructure qualifying for capital gains taxrollover relief under the Commonwealth CGT provisions for top-hatting restructures.

Mr Fraser: We welcome your interposition.

Mr NICHOLLS: I am always happy to interpose for the Treasurer and explain some things in theparliament for him.

The Queensland government, however, is late to provide this exemption because the New SouthWales and Victorian governments provided the exemption in their 2008-09 budgets. We welcome it, butit could have been done earlier.

The next item I will move to is the collection of duty on life insurance riders. Life insurance ridersare slight variations. I am sure that when you did law, Mr Deputy Speaker, it would have been lifeassurance. That was the old term for it. With the decline in standards and so on it is now called lifeinsurance. There was one thing that was guaranteed, and that is that you were going to die so it wasassured that you would get a payout. Life insurance riders also deal with disabilities or other eventsoccurring. This legislation clarifies the position in terms of payment of duty on those insurance riders.People were taking out other insurance riders to go with their life assurance, and it was not necessarilyclear that those policies were going to be subject to stamp duty in the state. We have now made somechanges that clarify the requirement to pay stamp duty on life insurance riders.

There is also an allowance in the legislation to allow WorkCover an exemption of time to lodge itsinsurance duty statements and pay insurance duty for accident insurance. I noticed in the explanatorynotes a claim is made that the time limit in the legislation is 14 days, but inevitably the commissionerallows 21 days for the lodgement of those duty statements and the payment of the insurance duty onthem. I wonder why it is that the WorkCover operation has such difficulty in complying with the terms ofits legislation that the requirement is often not met and that the commissioner, according to theexplanatory notes, seems to be obliged to give extensions of time for WorkCover to comply with thelegislation.


The amendments allow for refunds of transfer duty paid on certain transfers which aresubsequently cancelled. If an agreement has been entered into but that agreement subsequently is notcompleted, the contract is cancelled or there has been some other form of expiration of the contract orthe transfer, then the duty that might otherwise have been paid—because I think duties are required tobe paid within 30 days of the document being executed—is able to be refunded.

The amendments exempt parties from the payment of transfer duty when they convert land fromjoint tenancy to tenants in common. They also extend the transfer duty exemption for managedinvestment schemes where there has been a transfer of ownership but no transfer in the beneficialownership and the existing interests of the investors are still maintained. There are some other changesto ensure that there is consistency in the treatment of assessing duty when a property is transferred.The amendments expand the circumstances in which the commissioner may suspend or cancel aperson’s registration under the Duties Act as a self-assessor. At the moment self-assessors,predominantly solicitors and accountants, are registered and they—

Mr Fraser: Fine folk. Mr NICHOLLS: Exactly. They are exceptionally fine people. Mr Fraser: Some of them make good members of parliament; others don’t. Mr NICHOLLS: Do you have any examples? Mr Deputy Speaker, yes? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! The discussion between the two sides of the

House should stop, and please direct your comments through the chair. Mr NICHOLLS: Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure that when the Treasurer was referring to the

fine folk who are solicitors he had you in mind at some stage in the proceedings.Self-assessors actually assess duty. In the old days they had to traipse up to the stamp duty

office, lodge a document and collect it three days later after it had gone through the process, or take upa letter requesting that it be done urgently. It can now all be done in-house. The moneys are accountedfor. I think on a monthly basis a return is lodged. The solicitors or the accountants hold that money in aspecified account, usually a trust account, and they move it across to a suspense account and theyremit that money. Unfortunately, there are those who do the wrong thing, and that is the case. Where thecommissioner suspects on reasonable grounds that someone is doing the wrong thing, they have tomove quickly to protect the revenue and the interests of those people who pay the duty. The payment ofduty to the assessor does not obviate the payer of the responsibility to pay duty. If you pay it to theassessor and the assessor does the wrong thing and nicks off with it, or does something weird with itoverseas or at the casino, you are still liable for duty. That was one of the matters we discussed the lasttime we amended some of this legislation. The commissioner now has rights to suspend that person’sregistration as soon as they might become aware of something that is going wrong with a particular self-assessor. I think that is a fair balance in terms of protecting the revenue and those people who pay duty.That aspect of it is being dealt with here.

There are some rights that accrue to the assessor to seek a review, but I guess it is theprecautionary principle of saying, ‘We will stop it now and we will investigate to make sure that nothinggoes wrong,’ rather than waiting to find that the money and the self-assessor have departed, and thereis a whole lot of mess that has to be cleaned up by the various governing bodies and the commissioner,and also to find out that those people who have paid their duty in good faith to the assessor are out ofpocket.

There are some other consequential changes about illegal or unauthorised endorsements, suchas someone faking an endorsement on a document to indicate that duty has been paid. There are somechanges to the transfer exemption for gifts of a home to a spouse or de facto partner, whether or not thehome is subject to a mortgage. So we are clarifying that. If it was subject to a mortgage, it was notnecessarily clear that the exemption would apply in those circumstances, although if it was not, youwere exempt. There are a number of other changes in relation to the mechanism for the assessment oftransfer duty and the way that duty is charged and calculated. It includes things like a provision that atransfer duty exemption on a change of trustee may apply even if the rights or interests of a beneficiaryare altered, provided that duty has been paid on the alterations or they are exempt from duty. So if youhave a change of trust you pay stamp duty on that. If you have a change of trustee if you have paid theduty on your change of trust, you do not have to pay it again when you change your trustee.

There we have, I guess, a brief summary of the changes that I understand are being made to anumber of revenue bills before the House. I would like to go into a couple of other matters. I covered offmy concerns on the first home owners grant—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would now be a convenient time for you to break, member forClayfield?

Mr NICHOLLS: Certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker.Sitting suspended from 12.59 pm to 2.30 pm.


Mr NICHOLLS: Just before we broke for lunch I was discussing the changes that are being madeto the revenue legislation. I was about to move to the first home owner grant, which I canvassed earlierin my speech. The bill reduces the cap on the value of homes for which the grant is payable from$1 million to $750,000. During the lunch break we received some further information from officers fromthe Office of State Revenue as part of a briefing. I understand that some further details will be providedto the Treasurer to provide to us in his summing-up of the second reading debate.

I note that the statistics available from the Office of State Revenue show that the number of grantspaid in the last quarter of 2009, which is the latest figure available, has been steadily declining since thepeak in the June quarter of 2009. I suspect that probably follows the reduction in the total amount of thegrant payable from $14,000 to $7,000. There is also no doubt, in my view, that the first home ownergrant boost that was introduced also had the effect of pulling forward a substantial number of investmentdecisions or purchase decisions made by buyers who were going to take up the $14,000 grant before itexpired because it was obvious that it was going to be for a limited time. I guess there were plenty ofpeople who wished they were able to access the solar hot water scheme before it expired, somewhatprematurely as well.

Earlier, I mentioned the fact that there has been a decision to bring the cap down from a milliondollars to $750,000. There really has not been any substantial justification provided in the explanatorynotes to the bill for that cap being reduced from $1 million to $750,000. There is not a terribly largenumber of people in that range, as I indicated. I think the number is in the region of 240 to 250. The totalvalue of it I am not aware of.

It is a puzzling decision to bring it back to that figure. The only excuse being provided is that it isthe same in all the other states. I do not know that that is necessarily a great reason to do it. It couldmake a difference to people who live in my seat of Clayfield, where properties are much more expensiveand desirable by virtue of the fact that they are close to the city. This may be the case in electoratessuch as Brisbane Central.

Ms Jones interjected.

Mr NICHOLLS: Even though the minister might find it hard to believe, in the electorate ofAshgrove there might be properties worth over $1 million. The member for Ashgrove might like toconsider whether people who want to buy their first home in her electorate can do so using the firsthome owner grant. There are a number of people who, for good reasons that the government really hasno business asking about, might buy their first home which is worth over $1 million. This removes theopportunity for them to access equitably and fairly the first home owner grant.

Government members interjected.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Farmer): Order! The member for Clayfield has the call.

Mr NICHOLLS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thought that might get a response and itdid from the old, cold, dead hand of the socialists up in the back corner. The former Attorney-Generalstuck his hand up. His great mate Erin Brockovich is now advertising Shine Lawyers around the place.He is good at pulling the rich down and redistributing the wealth. That is the good old Robin Hood modelthat she goes with. I thought that would get the response that it did from those up the back. According tothe member for Toowoomba North, we shall not have success; we shall not have people striving tosucceed and better themselves. When they do, what they will do is come along and try to rip it out ofthem. They will just take a little bit more—like they did with the Valuation of Land Act, the petrol levy andthose sorts of things.

Although those opposite say that they want it to be equitable when everyone is paying the tax,they do not want it to be equitable when they are handing out the grants. So they will take from the richand hand money out to all their special interest groups and their mates, but they will not allow thosepeople who actually pay, contribute, strive and work to better themselves to enjoy any benefitswhatsoever. That is the old politics of envy of the Labor Party coming to the fore yet again.

It is puzzling that the government has moved to do this. One can only assume that it is the goodold left wing of the Labor Party who are sticking their hands up and saying, ‘Comrades, we will not havethis. We will take and we will take, but we will not give.’

A government member interjected.

Mr NICHOLLS: As I said, the good old comrades of the Labor Party take and take. There wouldbe plenty of people in the electorate of Mount Coot-tha who might be looking at buying properties worthover a million dollars. I am sure there are a few in that part of the world.

Mr Fraser: They’re also interested in fairness.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members should direct their comments through the chair.


Mr NICHOLLS: I take the interjection from the Treasurer that they are also interested in fairness.That is exactly the point I am making. The fairness is that they pay and the fairness is that they areentitled to access the grant. According to the Treasurer, that is not the case because this legislationsays that they can pay but they cannot access the grant because they have been successful or theymight want to buy a property that is worth over $1 million. That is the fairness that the Treasurer talksabout. We just call it—and everyone knows it for what it is—the politics of envy.

The bill removes references to the intergovernmental agreement that was negotiated as part ofthe original GST framework when the GST was proposed to be introduced back in 1999. Thoseintergovernmental agreements include the time frames and the taxes that were to be abolished as aresult of the GST. Those agreements have now been renegotiated with the Rudd government.Unsurprisingly, it has been decided that a number of those smaller taxes are going to be kept by thestates for a longer period than was originally envisaged. In Queensland, the duty payable on the transferof business assets, which I think was to be abolished next financial year, is now not going to beabolished until the subsequent financial year. Businesses in Queensland will again be disadvantagedbecause of the financial ineptitude of this government over the past few years and the fact that it wentbroke in a boom. This is more evidence, if any was needed, that the only federal government that trulyunderstood economic reform and was able to stand up for businesses in Australia was the Howard-Costello government of 11 years ending in 2007.

The Payroll Tax Act amendments are designed to bring Queensland into line with other states inrespect of the nexus for the payment of tax. Difficulties have occurred with the movement of workersand what enlivens the capacity of the tax commissioner in Queensland to recover payroll tax. Therehave been a number of problems with highly mobile employees, together with requirements aboutwhere the tax is paid. That is, is it paid into accounts and transferred throughout Australia, is it paid intoa central account or is it paid into an individual account?

Other states have been quick to move to protect their revenue source by ensuring that there is aclearly understood nexus for businesses paying payroll tax. This legislation brings us into line with otherstates and provides a clear understanding for employers and employees of the basis upon which payrolltax is to be collected. The amendments provide that the liability for the tax is based on the location of theemployee—that is, where they have their principal place of residence for the month in question on thelast day of that month. Where the employee basically lives is now the nexus. If one lives in Queensland,if one’s principal place of residence is in Queensland, it does not matter where one works; the payroll taxis payable in Queensland.

For employers the nexus will be taken to exist where the registered business address for ABN-holding employers is located and for non-ABN holders—trusts, and some organisations actually do nothave an Australian business number—their principal place of business. This clarifies, simplifies andmakes more easily understood the nexus for the obligation to pay payroll tax. We support the equalapplication of payroll tax for employers, but we also recognise its impact on employers and onemployment. That is why at the last election we committed to an affordable, costed $60 million payrolltax relief package to help employers and to address the issues of unemployment that the state wasfacing at that time.

We still believe that the best way to improve employment is to remove impediments to employing,such as payroll tax. If anyone goes around the state and talks to businesses, whether they be large orsmall, they would uniformly say that reform of the payroll tax system is singularly the largest and bestthing that government could do to improve their capacity to employ people and to put them on goodwages. It is uniform amongst the business community, whether they are members of chambers ofcommerce or the local newsagent: they all hate payroll tax.

Mr Moorhead: Who likes tax?

Mr NICHOLLS: I hear the member say, ‘Who likes tax?’ No-one likes any tax, but what theycertainly do not like is the increasing incidence of taxes that are paid in Queensland like the fuel tax thatwas introduced despite everyone on the opposite side saying, ‘We’re not going to do it.’ When they ask,‘Who likes paying tax?’, of course no-one likes paying tax. But people certainly do not like paying moretax than they have to and they certainly do not like paying more tax than they were told they were goingto pay at the last election, and this government told the people of Queensland that they would not bepaying a fuel tax and now they are!

The Taxation Administration Act 2001 provides that, where a taxpayer has received an amountfrom another person for all or part of the tax payable, the commissioner may make a refund of the taxonly if satisfied the taxpayer will reimburse the other person for the amount received—that is, this is thewindfall gains tax provisions. Where someone pays, as a component of payments they are legallyobliged to pay, money to another person and that person then receives a refund of tax, they are obligedto make sure it trickles back down to the original payers.


The changes that are being proposed by this legislation make it obligatory for courts to make surethat there is no windfall gain, that the payment of tax is passed back to the payers. That is another of thechanges being effected by this legislation. Those are some of the changes that go to the administrationof tax in the state in terms of clarification of some of the rules in relation to obligations to pay tax,clarification of rights to reimbursement, clarification in terms of windfall taxes as well as the changesmade to the first home owners grant.

This bill also deals with changes to the State Financial Institutions and Metway Merger FacilitationAct. On 1 December 1996, the Queensland government owned Suncorp and QIDC entities weremerged into the public listed Metway Bank to create the new all finance group Suncorp Metway. At thetime of that merger, Suncorp was a 100 per cent Queensland government owned corporation and wasoperating as an all finance group with approximately $10 billion in assets.

One of the issues in relation to Suncorp was the fact that most of its assets and most of itsinsurance base was in Queensland and it did need to, in effect, extend itself outside the borders in orderto give itself sufficient resources and reserves in order to meet claims made. The state government wasinitially the largest shareholder of the new group, with a 68 per cent holding consisting of shares incapital notes and 32 per cent was held by the existing Metway shareholders when the two were broughttogether. At the time of the merger the state government indicated an intention to sell down its holding instages to no more than 15 per cent. But by 1997—within two years—the government went from owning68 per cent of Suncorp to owning nothing.

Mr Watt: Who privatised that?

Mr NICHOLLS: The coalition government privatised that, but who took the benefit of the selldownfrom 68 per cent down to zero? The member for Everton asks, ‘Who was responsible for it?’ Yes, thecoalition was responsible for it. It brought together in a competitive industry in a proper way withappropriate returns—not to plug a black hole in a budget—an organisation that provided structuralreform in the insurance and finance businesses in Queensland. However, the then Queenslandgovernment also included the requirement to have a Queensland base and it also had a selldownprovision.

It is interesting to note that two years after it was formed—because it was going broke back thenin 1998—the Beattie government sold down all of its shares in it. It went to zero shares. It acceleratedthe selldown. In its haste to get into all of the hollow logs while it was racking up the returns from theGOCs, while it was forced to pay dividends instead of investing in capital, the government at that timesaid, ‘No. Hand over the money and we’ll sell off all the shares.’ It is the same old plot. It is the same oldLabor plot: ‘We can’t manage the finances so we’re going to keep flogging off the assets as best we canto fill budgetary black holes.’ That is what happened with Suncorp Metway.

After having given away the assets of Queensland back in 1998 when the then government solditself down—a practice that is being repeated again—there were still head office restrictions whicheffectively restricted the movement of the head office of the Suncorp Metway group from Queensland toanywhere else. What has happened of course is that the markets have become more sophisticated.Investors understand more about what is going on.

Necessarily the parochialism that might have been in existence in 1995-96 when the originalproposal was being put together is not necessarily there anymore, and the shareholders of SuncorpMetway have now said that they want to change the constitution to reflect current commercial practicesand requirements—best practices in the interests of the shareholders and the people who arecustomers of the Suncorp group. So this bill is proposing to change one aspect of the requirement thateach of what is called the Metway group of companies in the legislation locate its head office inQueensland by changing the requirement that either five directors or 40 per cent of the total number ofdirectors of each company must also be residents in Queensland.

That change to the company’s constitution was passed at the 2009 annual general meeting ofSuncorp to enable it to appoint directors from outside Queensland, and this legislation facilitates thatdecision of the members of the company. As I said earlier, it still requires the managing director to beordinarily resident here. The bill also makes some changes in relation to guarantees that were givenprior to the merger occurring in 1996 which are fairly technical in nature.

The Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act provides for amendment to simplify the transition ofpublic servants to being private sector employees while retaining their rights to QSuper. This processwill be simplified so that a gazettal notice issued by the Treasurer will in effect ensure the protection ofemployees of government owned corporations that are being privatised—that is, it will ensure theprotection of their rights in QSuper so that they will be able to continue to receive the benefits of QSuper.In terms of the privatisation for those workers who are concerned about it, this is a process that goes togiving them some certainty and some reassurance that a simple, straightforward process can befollowed in order to protect their super.


The other issue is the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (Queensland) Act, which I mademention of earlier. As it stands today, the Governor may only make a gazette to change the regulationsunder the Commonwealth Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act by express authority of an act ofparliament. It certainly makes a great deal more sense to allow those changes to be made by way ofadministrative arrangement—that is, subordinate legislation—of this House rather than an act everytime something needs to be added to or repealed or removed from the schedules. This brings us intoline with the other states around Australia in terms of mutual recognition of qualifications.

Turning now to the Infrastructure Investment (Asset Restructuring and Disposal) Act, it is theclauses in this portion of the bill that the LNP will be opposing. We will oppose these clauses becausethey allow the Bligh government to continue the disastrous, illogical, poorly justified and even morepoorly administered privatisation agenda in terms of the path it has gone down. One would have hopedthat the government, having made its decision to go down the privatisation path—which we opposed—would have at least had the gumption to go down it in a decent way and in a proper way. That is not thecase.

It is clear that the government does not understand properly how the privatisation process shouldwork and has closed its ears and its minds to any other alternative that might be put forward by anyoneelse to say, ‘This is the way to get a better longer-term return for the people of Queensland.’ This is notjust as simple as the government going down to Cash Converters and trading something in for a bit ofcash so that it can rebalance its bank accounts. There are repercussions, there are consequences andthis government does not understand, and does not even seek to understand, the consequences of itsill-thought through and rushed privatisation process.

The consequences for Queensland’s future economic prosperity of the changes in this bill toallow privatisation and 99-year leases will be disastrous for Queensland’s economy. Everyone knows it.Industry knows it, the customers of Queensland Rail know it particularly and even federal Laborluminaries such as Anthony Albanese and Martin Ferguson can see the disastrous outcomes that willarise from this government’s actions. But the Premier and the Treasurer have their heads collectivelyjammed in the sand when it comes to listening to alternatives that might be put forward for this ill-thought through and bad privatisation agenda.

Mr Fraser: Where’s your head on this?Mr NICHOLLS: As I said, the LNP will be opposing this section of the bill—Mr Fraser: No, whereabouts is your head on this?Mr NICHOLLS: I will explain to the House our reasons for doing so. I will now explain, for those

people who want to listen—because people have been saying, ‘Tell us what you think. Tell us why. Whatis going on?’ Now, I will do so. The Bligh-Fraser privatisation model is ill conceived, because it uses thewrong tools to target the wrong policy objective to the detriment of the wider Queensland community.The foremost policy consideration of the privatisation of Queensland’s public assets must start with along-term examination—a rigorous and detailed examination—that considers the long-term benefit toQueensland from the asset being held in public hands or in the private sector. So you have to do theassessment first.

In our view, the chief test is: what will deliver the greatest future economic prosperity toQueensland? That is the test. It is not whether you are ideologically for privatisation or ideologicallyagainst privatisation; it is what is going to deliver the greatest future economic prosperity to Queensland.It goes to the nature of the assets to be sold, the state of the market and competition for those assetservices. There are other issues that need to be considered, but those are the three main ones.

Among the other issues to be considered is: are taxpayers getting the full value for the sale oftheir assets? Are they recovering the full amount that it would be reasonable and practical to expect tobe received from the sale of those assets? Having looked at the timing of the announcement, the stateof the financial markets and the prevalent credit lending restrictions, we are of the view that this was notthe time—the time when these assets were announced for privatisation—to undertake the privatisationthat is being effected at the moment. Credit markets were jammed. You could not get finance. Therewere not any buyers out there in the market who were expressing a willingness. It was not the right time.It was a rushed privatisation. It is our view that the full market value of the assets is unlikely to beachieved and a proper return to Queensland taxpayers is therefore unlikely.

The LNP believes that there are many areas where government has a responsibility—indeed, anobligation—to provide the services that are expected by Queenslanders and where divestiture would beinappropriate. There are places where the private sector can provide services, and it ought to do so.Equally, there are places where the public sector is the best sector to do that—where there is not areadily available private market, where there is not competition, where there is a public good that needsto be supported by the public purse in order to provide services for the welfare and good governance forthe state of Queensland and the people who live here. So there are different areas where differentcriteria apply.


Let me be very clear. If the impetus for privatisation is addressing a shortfall in revenue—that is,because we are going broke—then the policy has already failed from the start, because you are saying,‘Look at the bank account. We’ve lost our credit rating. We’ve gone into debt. We’re paying more oninterest. We’ve had to access the Commonwealth guarantee. What we now need to do is sell off assetsin order to prop up our failing financial management.’ The government has not done the right thing in thefirst place. So selling the assets in order to prop up the losses that it has made over past years and theborrowings that it is going to have to make is the wrong decision in the first place. If privatisation wasdone from a position of strength—if you said, ‘We don’t need to do this but we are doing it because it isthe right thing to do, for whatever reason, and we think that this might be a better way to go’—that wouldbe a different kettle of fish. But that is not the case that we face. The case here is a mad scramble forcash to fill in the black hole that has been discovered. That is one of the reasons this privatisation beingundertaken by this government fails the test for the economic good governance of the state and fails thetest of acceptance by the people of Queensland.

So rather than establishing good, solid, well-thought through policy and explaining that policy tothe people of Queensland, this government aims no further than the next headline regardless of theconsequences. Just like the water crisis that cost Queenslanders $9 billion for a water grid that is nowlying idle, this government is flogging off five assets without having done the homework of whether thoseassets are best held by the private or the public sector. Governments should not look at privatisation asa back-up plan for its own failure to plan, budget and deliver. Similarly, privatisation should not beundertaken simply for the sake of doing it and simply for the sake of a few extra bucks.

Mrs Kiernan interjected. Mr NICHOLLS: I hear some squawking going on in the back benches over to my left. This is what

I said on 11 September 2008 when we discussed the equally unannounced sale of both the Mackay andthe Cairns airports—The LNP believes that privatisation can provide better outcomes and better value for money than traditional modes of servicedelivery in certain identified and defined areas... Whether it is in the form of divestiture, partnerships, alliance contracts oroutsourcing, the interaction of the private and public sectors has the potential to deliver and be of enormous benefit to both thecommunity and the economy. That is recognised by governments of all colours and at all levels.

Then I went on to say—Governments should not look at privatisation as a backup plan for its own failure to plan, budget and deliver. Similarly, privatisationshould not be undertaken simply for the sake of doing it and simply for the sake of a few extra bucks ... a government ... first mustconsider if there is a demonstrated community benefit. It must consider if it is being undertaken for more than a short-termeconomic return. As part of this process, the impact of privatisation on the community by changing the ownership of an asset orthe manner of service delivery must be considered, with any concerns of that community listened to and considered and withappropriate structures being put in place to address those concerns. Some of those structures may include a higher level of regulation, particularly in those instances where there is a monopolyposition in the market and there is no competitive tension to control the desire of a private enterprise to maximise profits andminimise services.

I then went through a number of other issues and then said that there are instances where thereis a monopoly situation where there would still need to be a very strong regulatory regime, for example,telcos and Telstra—and, for example, Queensland Rail. The right of access needs to be heavilyregulated. I then said—It can best be said that privatisation should not be seen as a short-term fix for long-term structural problems.

That is what we have in Queensland—long-term structural problems. I ask members to rememberthat this state’s finances were $65 billion in the red before the global financial crisis came along.

Mr Fraser: Not true.Mr NICHOLLS: It was $65 billion in the red and it then went up to $85 billion and now it has been

revised in the midyear economic forecast back down to $84.5 billion. This is a government that wasalready haemorrhaging money before the global financial crisis. It is a government that was unable tocontrol its expenditure and was unable to manage the budget effectively, which saw public sectorexpenses growing year on year by over 10 per cent. The government failed to control any of thatexpenditure. So what is this government doing? This government is using the asset sales in order toplug up a budget black hole—a black hole that was rapidly approaching before the global financial crisiscame to a head in 2009.

So because of lack of fiscal discipline and strong budget management and a complete inability tomanage the growth boom in South-East Queensland, the Treasurer and the Premier have panicked ona massive infrastructure spending spree and they have now panicked again on a fire sale ofQueensland assets. That is not prudent economic management. By trying to get the biggest return tothe budget bottom line to mask this fiscal incompetence of this government, the Treasurer has gone fora rapid fire sale process of one state asset after another as quickly as possible. In doing so, thegovernment’s economic dream team has totally missed some of the fundamentals of good economicpolicy—basics that have been pointed out to them by dozens of highly credentialled economists andeconomic commentators in recent months.


The role of the government goes well beyond good fiscal management, although that has notbeen the case here with this government. Governments such as the 12-year Howard-Costello economicteam provided long-term structural changes to improve the economic delivery of services in Australia.No-one would argue that the Australian economy is now not a far more robust and better economy thanit was in 1996 when that government came to power and found a $95 billion debt when it got there.

Having well-functioning markets, properly regulated, is the surest way to get better outcomes forthe community in the long run. The latest model for selling Queensland Rail will not achieve that. Thereis little doubt that the QR sale model, whereby the track network—that is, the so-called below-rail aspectof it—and the rolling stock—the above-rail assets—are to be sold as a single entity, will createsignificant and potentially intractable economic problems for the coal industry and hence forQueenslanders in the years ahead.

This type of vertically integrated monopoly—and that is what it is, a vertically integrated monopolyjust like Telstra—will not deliver the outcome that the people of Queensland are entitled to. AnthonyAlbanese knows it; his concerns are reported in the Financial Review today. He has gone so far as tosay that he is prepared to allow the Australian Rail Track Corporation to take a hand in putting a bidtogether with coal industry interests in order to see a different outcome from that which is beingproposed by this government.

A vertically integrated QR monopoly will be virtually impossible to regulate and very bad for thecoal business in terms of getting efficient and fair prices for haulage to the ports. We already know theproblems that are being experienced by the coal companies in getting the coal to the ports. TheO’Donnell report, which was commissioned in 2006, indicated quite clearly that the problems laystructurally within Queensland Rail. What is the government doing to fix that? It is moving the whole lot,holus-bolus, from a government monopoly to a private monopoly.

People will say that there will be regulations to allow third-party access. It will not work because,as a private enterprise owner of a private monopoly that is paying for that right, the private owners andtheir managers will want to maximise the return they get from their investment. That includes not makingslots available. That includes all sorts of things that can be done to make sure that getting access at thetime that the competitors want it—that is, third-party access rights on the track—will be extremelydifficult.

The same old team that is there now will be in the new organisation. They are moving over. Theyown and control access to the track and will do what they can to minimise the competition on it. Theyhave invested in it and no doubt feel that they should be able to get the maximum advantage out of it.The Treasurer will help them. He will recreate in private hands a public monopoly. It will be exactly thesame situation as has occurred with Telstra. The access to the copper wire has been restricted becauseof the practices that Telstra has engaged in, despite an almost continuous regime of regulation andamendments and oversight by the ACCC. Despite all of that, there have still been innumerable courtbattles and both public and political disputes over getting access to that network. That is what the below-rail section of Queensland Rail will be like under the private monopoly proposal for privatisation that isbeing put forward by this government.

It is clear that even federal Labor has concerns about this model. Members have not beenbackward in putting those concerns in the public arena—Martin Ferguson twice last week and AnthonyAlbanese yesterday. This government has used too narrow a focus on the commercial return—that is,by trying to maximise the return to fix the black hole rather than putting in place all the requirements tomake sure that we have a long-term viable proposal given that this privatisation ought not to beproceeding in the first place.

In relation to the privatisation of Queensland Motorways, we have seen what the government isdoing in terms of putting up the toll for people using the Gateway Bridge. The toll was originallydesigned to pay off the Gateway Bridge. What we know under Labor is that Queensland Motorways Ltdhas been burdened with enormous amounts of debt in order to continue to fund this government’sspending. Now, instead of paying off the debt accrued for the Gateway Bridge, the Logan Motorway debthas been lobbed onto it, the Port of Brisbane Motorway debt has been lobbed onto it and the Gatewayupgrade expansion has been lobbed onto it as well. The only way Queensland Motorways was going tobe attractive to a buyer was by increasing the tolls. The next question we have to ask is: what willhappen with distance based tolling? When will that be introduced? The gantries are already up on theGateway Motorway. When will distance based tolling be introduced in order to make the price and theproduct even more appealing for the private sector? That will continue all the way through.

There are many other issues arising in relation to privatisation and the privatisation model beingput forward by this government. What we do know is that Queenslanders do not support thisprivatisation. This government deceived Queenslanders when it said that it would not privatise. ThisPremier is regarded as not being able to be relied upon when she tells people that she will or will not dosomething. Every step of the way this government has ignored the best advice and has gone about itsbusiness with only one aim in mind, and that is to prop up its ailing budget and to cover up its fiscalineptitude. For those reasons we will not support the changes.


There are many issues that I have raised in this speech, some of which I have received someanswers to and some of which I look forward to the Treasurer providing some answers to. Some of thechanges here are good and worthwhile, such as those changes that put legislative surety around someof the administration arrangements for exemptions, but on the whole, in terms of the sale of the assets, Iurge the Treasurer to go back and look at the model he is proposing and come up with a model thatconsiders the long-term benefits for Queenslanders and not the short-term interests of his government.

Mr POWELL (Glass House—LNP) (3.06 pm): I rise to speak on the Revenue and OtherLegislation Amendment Bill 2010. As the shadow Treasurer pointed out, this bill amends some sixrevenue statutes as well as five other pieces of legislation. The shadow Treasurer, the member forClayfield, has considered each of these amendments in detail and outlined the LNP’s stance on each soI would like to concentrate on three of the amendments only.

Firstly, as stated in the explanatory notes, the amendments to the Payroll Tax Act 1971 willchange, from 1 July 2009, the territorial nexus for wages paid to employees providing services in morethan one jurisdiction to ensure consistency with other jurisdictions. I know from talking to businessowners and primary producers in my electorate that payroll tax continues to be an onerous burden. Asone of my constituents put it, why should successful businesses be penalised for being successful? Itstymies and frustrates the entrepreneurial nature of business owners when they are slugged withexcessive charges once their hard work and investment begins to bear fruit. As a state we need to beexploring alternative revenue-raising methodologies that do not penalise those businesses that areflourishing. That said, these amendments will clarify the existing application of payroll tax inQueensland.

Again as explained in the explanatory notes, issues recently arose with employees working inmore than one jurisdiction in a month. These issues included the impact of modern bankingarrangements which make it easy to change the place where wages are paid. To address these issues,all jurisdictions have announced an intention to change the payroll tax nexus arrangements. I note thatthe amendments will have an effect from 1 July 2009. Again we are challenged by that spectre ofretrospectivity. I refer to the Legislation Alert tabled this morning. In respect of whether the retrospectiveoperation would adversely affect individuals, the explanatory notes indicate that for some individuals thisis likely to be the situation. The impact on taxpayers will vary as some may become liable to pay in alower taxing jurisdiction when the wages were previously liable in a higher taxing jurisdiction and viceversa.

In respect of whether individuals may have relied upon or have legitimate expectations based onthe existing law, the explanatory notes state the change ensures that Queensland arrangements remainconsistent with those applying in all other jurisdictions. As the other jurisdictions publicly announced anintention to change the nexus arrangements from 1 July 2009, it was necessary for Queensland to dothe same to prevent double taxation or avoidance. The Office of State Revenue has advised alltaxpayers of the change.

I note in the explanatory notes that, in recognition of the retrospective effect of these changes,transitional provisions are being included to ensure that an employer whose liability under the PayrollTax Act 1971 increases as a result of the amendments will not be subject to any unpaid tax interest orpenalty tax under the Taxation Administration Act 2001 or a penalty under the Payroll Tax Act 1971. Ifurther note from the explanatory notes that where an employer’s liability continues under the newnexus arrangements and this affects the employer’s ability to comply with either the Payroll Tax Act1971 or the Taxation Administration Act 2001 the employer will not be taken to commit an offence undereither act if the employer or an administrator for the employer takes corrective action by the requiredtime. I accept these conciliatory moves on the part of the government to ensure that no business ownerwill be hit with unpaid tax interest or penalty tax but still question the need for retrospective application inthe first place.

Now I will touch briefly on changes to the Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act 1990. Theseamendments simplify the current process for the continuation of eligibility for membership with QSuperfor employees who are no longer employed by a state public sector unit as a result of the restructure ofa government business. I note that, although these amendments will be beneficial to affectedemployees in relation to the declared projects under the Infrastructure Investment (Asset Restructuringand Disposal) Act 2009, these amendments apply more generally to all restructuring of governmentbusinesses. As the shadow Treasurer highlighted, the new process will be facilitated by a gazettal noticeto be initiated by the minister, providing some safety to the public sector employees in question.

Finally, I turn to the part of the bill that the LNP will not be supporting. We will be opposingamendments to the Infrastructure Investment (Asset Restructuring and Disposal) Act 2009 as it willfacilitate the asset sales process, which is a process that we have opposed from day one. One of theamendments will make provision for the minister to approve workforce transition codes of practicedirected at ensuring the appropriate and fair treatment of employees affected by declared projects. Ifonly the government abided by its own words: appropriate and fair treatment. If only the workers at


Forestry Plantations Queensland in my electorate felt like they were being treated appropriately andfairly; if only the workforce transition code of practice gave them some certainty of ongoing employmentin their current location. Instead, their concerns are dismissed as rumour-mongering and the greedycries of disgruntled individuals. On both counts, the government has it wrong. These are not rumour-mongers. They are government employees desperately seeking clarification as to their futures and thefuture of their families. They are not greedy, disgruntled individuals. They are part of the majority of theQueensland population that feels had, that continues to distrust the Premier and that continues toexpress dissatisfaction with her performance and the performance of this government.

The lunacy and dishonesty of the assets sale and other surprise taxes imposed by thisgovernment in the past 12 months was the focus of an article by Paul Syvret in today’s Courier-Mail.After commenting on the government’s increases of Queensland motorway tolls, Syvret rather cheekilyproposes a few as yet untapped revenue honeypots that the Bligh government could still thrust adesperate paw into: a voting levy or poll tax, a licensed premise cover charge, beach passes, a no-more-its-the-law policy of calorie intake, registering of cycles, exhaust tunnel levies and perhaps aspecial Queensland residency fee to reflect the value of having a ‘4’ at the beginning of our postcode.Syvret states—There is a bountiful harvest of ripe fruit just waiting to be plucked. Then, we’ve established a good revenue stream, we can sell it.

Whilst clearly meant to be read with a significant amount of tongue-in-cheek, the underlying outrage atthe government’s dishonesty and inept economic management, at a time when it is needed most, isclear. In concluding my comments on the Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010, Iindicate that I concur with the closing remarks of Mr Syvret, who stated—

God forbid that government ever look at the expenditure side of the equation instead.

Mr FINN (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (3.13 pm): I rise to support the Revenue and Other LegislationAmendment Bill and to make a brief contribution to the debate today. The bill amends a number of actsto ensure that Queensland’s revenue legislation is up to date and continues to deliver the intendedoutcomes across the legislative framework. In amending these legislative instruments, the bill delivers anumber of beneficial amendments, some of which apply retrospectively to reflect administrativepractice, with others aimed at ensuring the integrity of our system of revenue. I am going to focus onone aspect of this bill, but before I do so I will make reference to the contribution from the member forGlass House, in particular his comments regarding FPQ. He spoke about this matter in the House lastsitting and I have since had a conversation with him.

The member for Glass House will know that the transitional code in relation to FPQ has beentabled in this House. It outlines a number of aspects of certainty to the terms and conditions of ongoingemployment for workers in FPQ. A number of meetings have taken place with officers of the Departmentof Industrial Relations, and I have had some contact with those in my role as parliamentary secretary.The union has been actively engaged in representing those workers and has been making sure that thedepartment is across issues affecting workers in that industry. Obviously, there can be degrees ofuncertainty around processes that any government or employer is undertaking in terms of changing thearrangements or amending workplace practices. I now put on the record—and I have encouraged themember to follow this advice—that if workers in FPQ have concerns about issues affecting that industryor changes to their workplace and they take their concerns to a member, he or she should raise themdirectly through us and we will make sure that any concerns raised are responded to.

Today I intend to focus on one aspect of this bill and comment briefly on it, which is theamendment to the exempt institutions provision. The Duties Act 2001 allows certain organisations toregister as exempt institutions and many charities, churches, schools and colleges are registered in thisway. Registration under the provisions of the Duties Act exempts these institutions from duty on certaininstruments and transactions where prescribed conditions are satisfied. One of the conditions is that theproperty that is the subject of the instrument or transaction must be used solely or almost solely for thequalifying exempt purpose. These may include activities for the relief of poverty, caring for the sick orelderly or activities of a religious or educational nature.

The current legislation requires that the property which is the subject of the transaction will beused for a qualifying exempt purpose within six months of duty liability arising. The property must alsocontinue to be used for that purpose for at least 12 months. This was outlined in the former Stamp Act1894, which was replaced by the current Duties Act. Similar provisions in the Stamp Act also providedthe commissioner with a discretion to extend the date for commencing to use property for the exemptpurpose. Under the Stamp Act it was the commissioner’s longstanding practice to exercise thediscretion to extend the start date in certain cases, provided a definite time frame for thecommencement of the use of the property for the exempt purpose was proposed by the institutionseeking the exemption. It meant that an extended period could be granted where a property wasacquired to be developed into a church or a school and the construction would generally take longerthan six months.


Under the Duties Act the equivalent exemption was not drafted as broadly as that under theStamp Act. Issues arise where an exempt institution advises the commissioner, when applying for anexemption, that it cannot meet the six-month time frame but can satisfy the use condition within a furtherperiod. In those cases, the commissioner had no discretion to extend the start date. The Duties Act hasbeen administered on the basis that the commissioner continue the practice of extending start dates thatexisted under the Stamp Act pending amendment. This bill contains the amendment that provides thecommissioner with the discretion to extend the start date for the use of a property by an exemptinstitution that is in line with the discretion that existed under the previous act.

The issue for relief for charitable organisations came to my attention when I was visited by DeafServices Queensland for assistance when it was securing a property in my electorate in the suburb ofYeerongpilly. Deaf Services Queensland was able to locate a suitable building and proceeded with thepurchase. However, the building was purchased under an agreement that an existing tenant, whooccupied 28 per cent of the building, would continue the occupancy under the existing lease through to2012. As the building was partially tenanted with rental paid to the organisation, the application forstamp duty exemption was rejected and Deaf Services Queensland was charged stamp duty on the full100 per cent of the purchase, even though 72 per cent was being used for charitable purpose. DeafServices Queensland appealed this decision. However, the appeal was not allowed and on its behalf Iadvocated to the Treasurer that relief be provided to the organisation. Section 72i of the FinancialAccountability Act 2009 allows the Under Treasurer to consider ex gratia relief and I was pleased toadvise Deaf Services Queensland that the Under Treasurer had determined that it be required to payduty only on the commercial aspect of the property. This provided Deaf Services Queensland with dutyrelief amounting to a little over $125,000 and also enables it to apply for relief for the commerciallyleased part of the property, should this be used for charitable purposes, within three years of the six-month start date. This allows the current tenant to see out the current lease period to 2012.

Deaf Services Queensland provide great services to many deaf and hard of hearing peopleacross Queensland and have done so in one form or another for 108 years. The success of thisorganisation is reflected in the fact that they have managed their funds wisely and were able topurchase a building and secure their future without government contribution to the purchase price. Theprovision of stamp duty relief has removed a significant financial burden for the organisation and hasenabled them to focus their efforts and funds on their charitable activities. I commend the work of thisorganisation and particularly the efforts of general manager Mr Brett Casey and CEO Mr AngeloToscano, who brought this matter to my attention.

The provisions in this bill that amend the Duties Act as it applies to charitable organisationsconfirm current administrative arrangements and provide the commissioner discretion in line with theintention of the Stamp Act provisions. This will enable exempt organisations that provide charitableservices in our community to better access duties relief. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr WENDT (Ipswich West—ALP) (3.20 pm): Today I wanted to say a few words about twoaspects of the Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. Firstly, I will talk about the first homeowner grant and how it has been successful in assisting people buying or building their first home andthus allowing them to enter the housing market. Secondly, I will also touch on the trans-Tasman mutualrecognition amendment.

Firstly, I think it is important to remember that the first home owners grant is of course a nationalscheme administered and funded by the states and territories under their own legislation. InQueensland, for instance, the grant is administered by the Commissioner of State Revenue under theFirst Home Owner Grant Act 2000. This grant, as many would know, was introduced to assist housingaffordability for people buying their first home in Australia at a time when the costs were affected by theintroduction of the goods and services tax, or GST, way back on 1 July 2000. As such, the grant waseffectively aimed at offsetting the expected increased costs of the GST and at the same time to providesupport for the housing industry which may otherwise have experienced a post-GST decline.

In view of this, the principles behind the grant were set out in the Intergovernmental Agreementon the Reform of Commonwealth-State Financial Relations, signed in 1999. Under those principles, thegrant was designed to be a once only payment for first home buyers—that is, a grant payable for aneligible completed transaction to buy or build a first home but only if all of the applicants met theeligibility criteria, and of course only one first home owner grant was payable per application.

From the introduction of the grant in 2000 until 1 January 2010, all first home buyers were entitledto the grant regardless of the value of the home being purchased or built. However, in Queensland,since 1 January this year, eligibility for the grant has been capped at homes valued up to $1 million. Asyou know, Madam Deputy Speaker, Queensland led the way in introducing this cap which followedcommunity concerns that some grants were being paid to first home owners who were buying $1 millionplus homes, and rightly so. I believe that it could be considered that if someone was purchasing a homeof this value then they probably did not need Queensland taxpayers subsidising their purchase.


As such, subsequent to Queensland’s announcement of a $1 million cap, New South Wales,Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory also proceeded to announce the introduction of acap, but they started theirs at $750,000 from 1 January 2010. As a result of this, in January this year thegovernment announced its intention to reduce the existing cap applying to the grant from $1 million to$750,000 in Queensland. As such, the amendments currently before the parliament will align theQueensland cap with that of other jurisdictions.

Research shows that the average price of homes for which the grant is paid in Queensland islower than the median house price in Brisbane. For example, the median house price paid in Brisbaneat June 2009 was $410,000, while the median price paid for all Queensland homes for which the grantwas paid was only $340,000. As we can see based on this analysis, the new $750,000 cap will in factaffect very few first home buyers. Madam Deputy Speaker, to give you further proof, I am aware thatduring 2008-09 there were only 256 grant payments in Queensland for homes valued between$750,000 and $1 million. This is 256 grants out of a total of 34,465 grant payments made during theperiod.

It is also important to note that this new cap will apply to contracts of sale and comprehensivebuilding contracts entered into on or after 31 March 2010, and for owner builders the new cap will onlyapply to homes where the commencement of building works is on or after 31 March 2010. As always, Ibelieve that this grant will continue to provide significant assistance to those most in need when enteringthe housing market for the first time and as such will continue to allow them to achieve the greatAustralian dream of homeownership.

With this in mind, I believe that the new cap will better target that assistance to those first homebuyers most in need. However, it is important to note that all first home buyers are also assisted inachieving the dream of homeownership through other measures introduced by this government. Forexample, in 2008 Queensland led the way in introducing increases in the transfer duty homeconcessions so that transfer duty on the purchase of a home or first home up to $1.5 million was lowerthan in any other jurisdiction.

I would now like to comment on the amendments to the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition(Queensland) Act 2003 contained in this bill. It is my belief that these amendments will simplify theprocess to endorse Commonwealth amendments to the goods and occupations exempt from theoperation of the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Scheme. As such, I believe that this will enableQueensland to respond more quickly to future changes in the Trans-Tasman Mutual RecognitionScheme at the Commonwealth level. Madam Deputy Speaker, as you would know, the Trans-TasmanMutual Recognition (Queensland) Act 2003 works in tandem with the Commonwealth’s Trans-TasmanMutual Recognition Act 1992, with the trans-Tasman scheme being an extension of the mutualrecognition agreement, and as such aims to create a national market for goods and registeredoccupations.

Currently, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you are aware, Queensland is the only jurisdiction thatrelies on an act of parliament to endorse regulations made under the Commonwealth’s Trans-TasmanMutual Recognition Act. As such, the amendments before us today bring Queensland into line with otherjurisdictions by removing the requirement for an act of parliament for Queensland to endorseCommonwealth regulation amending the goods and occupations that are exempt from the operation ofthe Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Scheme.

These amendments will mean that, when all participating jurisdictions are in agreement, particulargoods—for example, drug paraphernalia—should be excluded from the mutual recognition scheme andthat the process will not be delayed because other jurisdictions are waiting on Queensland to pass anact of parliament. As such, the Commonwealth will now be able to close loopholes quicker and makeother changes that are requested by jurisdictions in a timely fashion.

In addition, I believe that the bill will ensure Queensland can contribute to the routineadministration of the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Scheme. With this in mind at the current time,several Commonwealth regulations under the Commonwealth Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Actneed to be remade each year for administrative purposes. These remakes require endorsement by two-thirds of the jurisdictions. However, the current arrangements mean that Queensland has left this workto other states and territories to carry out, and I believe that this is simply not good enough.

As such, these amendments make the common-sense change to align the endorsement processunder the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (Queensland) Act 2003, with the equivalent provision inthe Commonwealth Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act and will thus reduce our reliance on otherjurisdictions in terms of ensuring the necessary regulations are being made. With those few words, Isupport the bill.

Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—LNP) (3.27 pm): I rise to speak to the Revenue and Other LegislationAmendment Bill 2010. From the outset, I want to congratulate the shadow Treasurer on his verycomprehensive and detailed analysis of the legislation from the opposition’s perspective. There is onlyone aspect of this legislation that I want to speak to, and that is the privatisation clause and the issue ofthe government divesting itself of Queensland Rail, Abbot Point and the Port of Brisbane. Again, it goes


to show that this government is certainly in crisis. This government wants to divest itself of these primeassets when it is not a good time to sell. Those opposite preach every day of the week about the globalfinancial crisis. When you have a crisis on your hands, it is not a good time to sell anything. The issue is:what is going to happen to the remnants of Queensland Rail when we see that privatisation go through?The Treasurer might like to comment on that in his summing-up at a later hour.

At the current time for cattle trains from western Queensland—I am talking about places likeQuilpie, Winton and Cloncurry—you never know from one day to the next whether there are going to belocomotives available, whether there are going to be locomotive drivers to drive those trains or whetherthere is going to be rolling stock at all. I remember that in my time as a minister of this state we had1,000 wagons in QR livestock for cattle trains. Now it is only 500. Now we do not seem to be able toeven get a train. A critical situation exists, and with privatisation we will probably see no rail services atall to western Queensland. I would like to have that reinforced by the Treasurer in his summing-up. Arewe going to see a continuation of these services?

We have freight trucks running into Charleville. We have freight trucks running into Longreach,carrying goods to railway stations now and dropping them off. We have the same situation inCunnamulla. Now that these places have received good rains and are having abundant seasons, we willsee a lot of wool and cattle coming out of them. What will happen with our rail services? Again, thisgovernment is forgetting what the real determination is for that area. It is about the productivity of thewool and beef industries.

The price of a deck at Quilpie is $1.35 on road. Queensland Rail now wants $1.60 for a deck—that is for a KL, a 50-foot wagon—and that is too expensive for the competitors. When I say ‘thecompetitors’, I am talking about competition between road and rail. What will happen is that most of thecattle that come into Quilpie or Winton will go via road instead of via rail. There is a compoundingproblem here. Instead of Queensland Rail keeping that type of traffic off the road, we will see it go viaroad.

I will give one other example. We will have a situation in western Queensland, in places likeBarcoo, Diamantina and the Boulia shire, whereby cattle will not go to Brisbane because it is too far.They will go straight onto road transport through Birdsville. A bit over half of that road between Bouliaand Birdsville is sealed now. Those cattle will go straight down to Maree, Leigh Creek and onto MurraysBridge and Naracoorte to be slaughtered and processed at those plants, because it is only 1,200kilometres from Birdsville to those slaughterhouses in South Australia. In addition to losing railway jobsand jobs right across Queensland, meat industry jobs in the south-east will dry up, too. At Swift inDinmore they are killing 3,500 head of cattle a day. A lot of those cattle will now go to South Australia.The same will probably apply to Teys Brothers at Beenleigh. What will happen to the cattle that go intoplaces like Rockhampton and Biloela? Again, we will see those western cattle slaughtered elsewhere.There is going to be a pow of them this year, Mr Deputy Speaker, because the season is mickey mouse,I have to tell you.

I heard the shadow Treasurer comment today on the lockup of coal trains on the network. I haveBlackwater in my electorate. It is the hub for those big coal trains that run into the port of Gladstone. Iwas coming along there one day and I counted 15 of them fully loaded and locked up on the pointswaiting for other traffic to come through. I do not believe this situation is satisfactory to our tradingpartners. We talk about Hay Point and Dalrymple Bay and ships sitting off the coast because we cannotget the traffic in there. The real reason is poor planning. The O’Donnell report that was put in place bythis government certainly identified that. Again, we see 22 sets of coal wagons operating at Jilalan. Theywill now be driving at capacity to carry the coal that comes from the top of the Bowen Basin.

The privatisation of Queensland Rail is a rushed job. Any time you have a rushed job, somethingbuggers up. That is certainly going to be the situation here. The real issue I am concerned about is:what is the future for western Queensland rail services? Are we going to see all those tracks torn up?They will probably go to Roma. Look at what is happening around Roma at the moment. There is aboom in the gas industry that nobody ever comprehended. I still do not think we have a fullcomprehension of it or of just how complex this industry is. It probably goes from Moomba right throughto Roma and beyond and right up into the southern part of my electorate into the Arcadia Valley andprobably further north, for all we know.

With the technology available today, I really think this is selling off the family jewellery before weknow the true worth of that jewellery. Hancock Coal, Hancock Prospecting and Waratah Coal are goingto put in place probably one of the biggest coalmines in the world just north of Alpha. They will bebuilding 500 kilometres of standard-gauge track right through to Abbot Point. I was sitting here todaythinking that I bet those two companies have their sights set on Abbot Point. I hope they do buy them ifthey are for sale, because at least we will see them stay in some form of Australian ownership. Thevision that these people have is a big vision. It will create something like 5,000 jobs in the constructionstage but, most importantly, it is going to create multimillions of dollars for the economy of not only thisstate but also this nation.


We heard the Premier rightfully in the chamber this morning talk about the royalties from thesemines. It is not only those mines but also the mines right through that area in question interfaced withthe grain industry, the cattle industry, the wool industry and the oil and gas industries. What are we goingto do? We are going to sell the main conveyor of productivity, Queensland Rail. You bet we are. Why arewe going to sell it? Because we are busted. Why are we busted? Because we cannot manage. We arepoor managers. If I gave you a $100 bill, you would run down to the shop and spend it. You would notput it in your pocket and think about it. You would run down there and spend it. What we should be doingis giving you 100 cents and then you would know what it is like to go without.

The biggest problem here is that half of the people on the government side have never run abusiness, they have never been broke and they have never had to pay the wages. That is the realproblem. They have had no real life experience when it comes to business. I look at some of theseoperators now and think of some of the advice they are getting. Some of the people on the other sidetalk to me behind the scenes and say that they do not favour this. Well, show some guts and stand upand tell the people of Queensland that you do not support it. Tell your Premier that you do not support it.Tell your Treasurer that you do not support it. Do not sit there and cower and think about it.

The real issue here is that you are going to give this away. When you give it away, you will not beable to get it back. The Victorian government sold its railways because of poor management under theCain and Kirner Labor governments. Now what do they want to do in Victoria? They want to buy it back,but they cannot buy it back because the people who bought it know what a good return on investment itis.

Mr Kilburn: A Liberal government sold it. Mr JOHNSON: Do you know why they sold it? Because they were broke. They were absolutely

busted because of Labor administrations just like yours. You are a Labor man, old mate. Don’t sit andhide behind a paper, because I will stand up, yell out and tell you what you are hiding behind.

Mr Kilburn interjected.Mr JOHNSON: What do you have there—Mr Rudd or someone, is it? He is another one of your

mates. I saw that magazine. If you want to interject on me, old mate, I will give you all the responses youwant.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! I have listened now for eight minutes and I amstruggling to find relevance in relation to this issue. I would ask you to come back to the bill. Themember for Gregory has the call.

Mr JOHNSON: The issue with this bill that I have been talking about is the privatisation ofQueensland Rail—the selling off of our assets. If we go back to the early nineties, when the Gossgovernment wanted to close down railway lines in this state, there were two members of parliament onthe government side at the time who supported the opposition. One was the former Premier, PeterBeattie, and the other was the then member for Archerfield, Len Ardill. I wonder what Len Ardill wouldthink about what is happening today.

I see the member for Everton having a little grin to himself. The real issue is that this is a sadindictment on the hard work of Queenslanders over 150 years and what our railway has meant to thisstate. It is naive, irresponsible and certainly not in the context of forward planning and forward vision tosell an asset like this at a time when this state is on the eve of one of the biggest explosions in wealthgeneration through its gas, oil, coalmining and mineral industries.

This is about jobs. Every day we hear the Premier talk about the 100,000 jobs that hergovernment is going to create in this term of government. I hope she does create 100,000 jobs, but theyhave to be 100,000 jobs that have value. Those jobs will come from the construction industry, thetransport industry and the infrastructure industry. These industries are where activity will be created andthus wealth generated.

I again say to the government members and the Treasurer that a very big responsibility attachesto what they are trying to do here. It was Joan Sheldon and I who from 1996 to 1998 separated theQueensland Rail track from other operations so that we could have national competition and third-partyaccess. I know there have been issues with regard to third-party access but, at the end of the day, wehave to make absolutely certain that we do not lose what is rightfully ours and what rightfully belongs tothe people of Queensland.

Ms BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (3.41 pm): I rise today to make a contribution to the debate onthe Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. The bill amends the following Queenslandrevenue statutes: the Community Ambulance Cover Act 2003; the Duties Act 2001; the First HomeOwner Grant Act 2000; the Land Tax Act 1915; the Payroll Tax Act 1971; and the TaxationAdministration Act 2001. The bill also amends the GST and Related Matters Act 2000; the InfrastructureInvestment (Asset Restructuring and Disposal) Act 2009; the State Financial Institutions and MetwayMerger Facilitation Act 1996; the Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act 1990; and the Trans-TasmanMutual Recognition (Queensland) Act 2003.


Many of the amendments are beneficial and a number have been operating under administrativearrangements. Other amendments clarify the operation of the legislation or update or correctsuperseded terms or references. According to the Bligh Labor government, the remaining amendmentsare considered necessary to protect revenue. The amendments and their impact allow the governmentto facilitate the divestment of the state’s interests in a variety of businesses, assets and liabilitiescurrently held through several government owned corporations and other government owned entities.

The LNP will be opposing clauses pertaining to the amendments to the Infrastructure Investment(Asset Restructuring and Disposal) Act 2009 as they will facilitate the asset sales process. Theopposition was gagged in the debate during the budget sitting last year. The government debated fivebills cognately and guillotined the debate in order to gag members from representing the views of theirconstituents. Residents in the Mudgeeraba electorate were angered that they were misled on this andmany other issues by the Bligh Labor government, which knew that these assets would be sold prior tocalling the 21 March 2009 election.

This legislation is the first opportunity to discuss the asset sale process since the legislation wasrushed through the parliament with no consultation with Queenslanders. In June last yearQueenslanders heard a confession—a confession from Anna Bligh and Andrew Fraser that confirms thepublic’s suspicion that Labor hid the state of our finances from the voting public just three months beforecalling an early election. Today Queenslanders understand just how financially incompetent this Laborgovernment is and that every man, woman and child has been condemned to a decade of debt becauseof this incompetence.

Queenslanders today understand that when we fill up our cars, buy food at the supermarket, turnon the tap, flick on the lights—basically every daily activity—it is now more expensive thanks to theineptitude and incompetence of this government. Andrew Fraser and Anna Bligh misled the public andblamed the state of the economy on the global financial crisis when in fact it was this government thatracked up over $64 billion in debt long before the global financial crisis hit and allowed Queensland togo bust in a boom.

We are facing government debt of $85.5 billion. To put it in simple terms, for an average family offour that is a $78,000 debt each. Yes, a massive $78,000 debt each—not per household, each. It isgoing to cost Queensland taxpayers $14 million a day every day just to pay the interest bill on this$85.5 billion of debt. The once proud history of Queensland as the low-tax, lifestyle capital of Australia isnow becoming a distant memory. We are the only state in Australia to have lost its AAA credit rating,having previously been the nation’s economic powerhouse. The deceit has now cost this great state aburden of debt, but unfortunately it is not a burden that it alone has to carry. The government has nowextended this burden to every single Queensland mother, father and child.

It is also clear that Queenslanders do not trust the Bligh Labor government, as reported on theABC News website on 3 June 2009. It states—Ms Bligh rejected Opposition accusations plans for a $15 billion privatisation of assets should have been outlined during theMarch election campaign, saying circumstances changed after the poll.

...

The Government will sell the Port of Brisbane, Queensland Motorways, Forestry Plantations Queensland, Queensland Rail’s coalbusiness and the Abbot Point Coal terminal in the state’s north.

It will also scrap the eight-cents-a-litre fuel subsidy to save $2.4 billion over four years.

Ms Bligh says there may be a stock market float to sell some public assets over the next five years.

‘Having made the decision, I felt it was important to publicly announce it as soon as possible,’ she said.

‘But we will now sit down in a careful way and consider each one of these and how they should be structured and what sort of saleshould occur and whether a float is a possibility in any of those cases.’

It was reported in the Age on 20 July 2009—Queensland Premier Anna Bligh will not budge on her decision to sell $15 billion of public assets despite an expected voterbacklash at the next election.

The Queensland government passed laws in June to allow the sale of assets, including the Port of Brisbane, QueenslandMotorways and Queensland Rail’s coal freight business.

Results from a union campaign and poll against privatising assets to reduce Queensland’s debt have revealed a voter backlash insafe Labor seats.

Ms Bligh said her government had known it could face a backlash at the polls due in 2012 ...

She said the sell-off would go ahead because it would reduce Queensland’s debt levels and restore its AAA credit rating.

The Electrical Trades Union (ETU) is sinking $1 million into a campaign against privatisation which includes placing billboardsagainst the proposal in the electorates of Labor politicians who voted for the sale.

ETU state secretary Peter Simpson said the government had timed the sell-off in the hope voters would forget about the decisionbefore the next election.


‘The laws have been passed, but they haven’t been enacted and our goal in the next two-and-a-half years is to make sure they’renot enacted,’ Mr. Simpson said.

‘People are genuinely outraged ... because they weren’t consulted, they weren’t told about it before the election and they (thegovernment) are selling their asset, so they’re pretty dirty about it.’

Bumper stickers read: ‘See Queensland first before Bligh sells it.’

Results from the ETU poll showed that 37 per cent of Labor voters would switch their vote because of the privatisation, while60 per cent of ‘soft voters’ indicated they would be more likely to switch their vote as a result.

The Queensland Council of Unions is also planning a year-long anti-privatisation campaign with details expected to be knownafter July 28.

The Rail, Tram and Bus Union, the Australian Services Union, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, the AustralianFederated Union of Locomotive Employees Queensland and the Maritime Union of Australia have been organising meetings andrallies in regional communities.

The website www.qldnotforsale.org.au states—The Queensland Government in June 2009 announced that it intended to sell off some of our public assets to help meet its budgetpromises.

Queensland Rail’s coal and freight arms, Queensland Motorways, the Port of Brisbane and forestry plantations are all up for sale.

Queensland unions are leading a community campaign opposing the sell-off of public assets. Our campaign through Queenslandin June and July received widespread support from all Queenslanders wanting to ensure public assets remain in public hands.

These assets must be operated in the interests of the people of Queensland, rather than in the interests of shareholders’ profits.

Research shows Queenslanders want the government to maintain our assets—not sell them off in a panic when times are tough.

Selling off Queensland’s public assets for infrastructure building is a short-term solution that will have long-term consequences forQueenslanders.

Our state will lose valuable money-making public assets—and we will never be able to reclaim them.

In the average Queensland household, when times get tough you might tighten your belts and talk to the bank manager—you donot sell your house.

Our Railways which were built with public money will be sold off to operators more interested in making money than providing avital service to our regional industries, such as mining and farming.

Our Ports which were built with public money will become private gateways possibly owned and operated by foreign interests.

Our Motorways users will face higher charges and reduced maintenance levels to maintain profits for private companies.

Our forests will no longer be managed for the benefit of Queenslanders but for the operator’s profit margin.

Privatising public assets has been disastrous throughout the world—you can act to make sure Queensland doesn’t make thesame mistake.

Lastly, from the website of ABC News on 9 March 2010—Thousands of workers have gathered in Brisbane calling on the Queensland Government to end its privatisation plans. Anestimated 4,000 workers marched on Parliament House over the Government’s plans to sell off its rail, port and forestry assets.Electrical Trade Union (ETU) spokesman Peter Simpson says Queenslanders do not support the asset sales. ‘Since this wasannounced in May, 80 per cent of Queenslanders have stuck to the message and said “we’re opposed to these asset sales—wedon’t want them to go ahead”,’ he said. Rail, Tram and Bus Union ... spokesman Owen Doogan says the government is notlistening to Queenslanders. ‘It’s a disgrace,’ he said. ‘It’s a betrayal and the people of Queensland are not going to stand by andallow this privatisation to occur—we’re going to fight it and we’re going to win it.’

It is not rocket science that selling off our assets against the wishes of Queenslanders at a timewhen mums and dads are fighting to hold on to their most valuable assets such as their homes isludicrous. As noted in the contribution to the second reading debate by my colleague the member forClayfield—It is this portion of this bill, clauses 79 to 83, that the LNP will be opposing. We oppose this section because it allows the Blighgovernment to continue its disastrous, illogical, poorly justified and even more poorly administered privatisation agenda. Expectingthe Bligh government to do a good job of privatisation is like expecting an atheist to write a good communion. They do notunderstand what is required or why a government would privatise major assets. It is not as simple as toddling down to CashConverters and exchanging goods for cash. There are repercussions, there are consequences and this government does notunderstand and does not even seek to understand the consequences of its privatisation actions.

This government cannot be trusted. It announced the sale of our assets only after it had misledthe Queensland public. This is the same government that went bust in a boom, allowing us to becomethe only state in Australia to lose its AAA credit rating, and the same government that has condemnedQueenslanders to years of debt. Unlike those opposite, who all voted to sell Queensland, I can hold myhead high in the electorate of Mudgeeraba and demonstrate that at least I and my opposition colleaguesstood up for our electorates in Brisbane. I can assure those opposite that their constituents will bereminded for the next two years about how the assets they once owned were stolen from them and howthe government had the gall to try to sell back to them something that they used to own!


Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—LNP) (3.51 pm): In anyone’s reasonable assessment of themanagement of state finances, Queensland’s performance under the Bligh Labor administration ratesas our worst ever. That assessment is universally held across Australia. When the Labor government’smost recent examination under the financial microscope was performed, the general opinion was thatBligh and Labor had managed our economy just about as badly as could have been done—masters oftheir own destiny, but the tragedy is that it is a shared journey that we all have to endure. This bill isabout revenue. Without doubt, this is the oxygen that keeps our state rolling. This bill is, as otherspeakers have described, an omnibus bill that has an impact on everything from payroll tax to GST tothe first home owner grant.

Revenue currently in the state context is hovering around the $40 billion mark, with expenses inthis current financial year exceeding this by $1.3 billion and projected to double in the next financialyear. Our current state debt has climbed to over $80 billion—$85.5 billion is the estimate—a twentyfoldincrease in 14 years. Incidentally, the revenue base has only trebled in that same time frame. Interestrates in that time have declined but, since federal Labor returned to power, are now sitting at half that of14 years ago. Numbers are very interesting things, as is comparing historical reports. The three majorindicators of real significance when looking at revenue must be the growth in the revenue base, thegrowth in the expenditure base and the debt, both net and growth in that debt, as a proportion of therevenue base. Expenditure is growing at near double the rate of any other comparable time in ourhistory and is double that of the revenue base uplift. Net debt is increasing because of the failure of costcontrols over our major projects and uncontrolled and inappropriate capital expenditure. The growth ofthat debt is also due to poor management of projects together with an inability to deliver projects thatyield income.

Before anyone opposite gets too animated and jumps up to say, ‘We’re selling assets and we’rebuilding infrastructure,’ this bill does not address the issue of asset sales. However, the rationale for theasset sales is not only questionable; it may be catastrophic. The Treasurer in his second reading speechstated—This bill inserts new provisions to facilitate the lease of these projects and provides appropriate commercial certainty for the stateand the ongoing businesses.

This amendment to the Infrastructure Investment (Asset Restructuring and Disposal) Act 1990 isdriven by the demands of bankers and ratings agencies. The government is reacting to fear andintimidation. In this scenario it only has itself to blame, but this is not the correct response in difficulttimes. The member for Gregory has correctly explained why, as have the shadow minister and themember for Mudgeeraba. The idea that asset sales such as these will deliver certainty is flawed. Incontrast to today’s comments by the Treasurer regarding supportive statements of Peter Holmes aCourt and John Prescott, these do not mean anything from a dying Labor government trying to flog offassets in a market that is currently static. I sense that the statement of the Treasurer is reflective of amajor lack of experience in business and assessing what businesspeople are really saying and whythey say it.

Treasurer, Peter Holmes a Court and John Prescott are independent directors and see a greatopportunity here because a laggard government cannot drive efficiencies from a massive state ownedasset that has a key strategic role in the current and many future developments of cash-earning capitalinvestments made by the state. Overwhelmingly, there are links between the mines and our ports. Thesale of the above-rail network and, by default, the licence to transport these products is a growthbusiness. Revenue from it will drive capital return to investors. These businessmen know what this cando for a company’s fortunes.

Strangely, it was Peter Holmes a Court’s father, Robert Holmes a Court, who stalked BHP whilstJohn Prescott was a major executive of that company. The Treasurer may not realise that. Arguably,Holmes a Court would have been the enemy of the board at that time—and that has been well stated—the executive and the staff, John Prescott amongst them. Robert Holmes a Court’s mantra waspurchasing using highly leveraged capital and divestment of anything where the internal rate of returnwas not above his very rigorous formula—he used a formula of 20 per cent and anything above it—andhe further leveraged on the target company’s equity base. BHP chose John Elliott’s marginally bettersolution. It cost shareholders and the Australian taxpayers a fortune. Many staff lost their jobs and theAustralian steel industry was changed forever. Treasurer, read this as a massive loss of capital—bothfinancial and human.

The Brisbane and Sydney stockbroking fraternity are supportive of this proposal because—andthe Treasurer should not be fooled—the fees for this float will generate exorbitant returns, and he shouldignore today’s AFR report. Mum-and-dad shareholders will legitimately see QR as a gilt-edged float. I donot want to talk it down and I do not even want to let some of those potential investors down, but QR isa troubled goliath. It is not well managed. It has very lucrative contracts. It is only just on the cusp of awhole new era of massive income generation. Its staff—long-suffering—have toiled away in variousdownstream divisions for many years that have been ignored. The benefits of coal leases, electrification


and automation—that is, largely everything other than rolling stock—have largely eroded theiropportunities and their job security. A share market float via privatisation really places many of thosejobs, because they are medial, as old world and potentially redundant. For a government that gloats in a‘jobs, jobs, jobs’ mantra, it is publicly saying that only those jobs for the favoured few will remain and thatits mates will be protected above those others.

QR, the motorways, the forestry assets and the ports are critical capital assets of the state. It is nowonder that key businesspeople want to see them unshackled from the bonds of a government—especially a Labor government such as the Bligh Labor government, whose management style isinherently obstructive, wasteful and antiquated. The promise of privatisation for businesspeople is to berid of negligent union hacks running substantial businesses which are businesses that have growth andincome potential.

The problem with the argument in the government’s case is that the capital return at this time isnot reflective of the true value of the business. Unfortunately, timing is everything. It is axiomatic inbusiness that one does not sell straw hats in winter and one does not sell the goose that lays the goldenegg. The coal haulage lines are the goose that lays the golden egg and the consideration of the sale ofother assets such as motorways and forests in this market is wrong. The failure of Timbercorp andSAPFOR in forestry is salient with regard to the issue of the forestry assets.

The divestment of assets by the liquidators in the case of Timbercorp and SAPFOR has drivendown the value of the assets in this market. The current difficulty with the Lane Cove tunnel in Sydney,which is the main thing that is affecting motorway prices, and the economics of the current Airport Linkproject, which was championed again today, are driving down values. As most people know, a Canadianinfrastructure fund is currently stalking Transurban and is trying to determine an outcome that is drivenon getting a higher rate of return for income. The Macquarie Bank continues to shed most of its surplus,poorly performing motorways investments, including in Australia. The motorway assets, arguably, havegrown in value because there is no standard gauge railway link to the Fisherman Islands port and themajor north-south link in Brisbane is now the Gateway Bridge duplication.

The asset sales are not strategic. They are a desperate attempt at financial face saving with thegovernment’s own constituency which, surprisingly enough, seems to not want to support it. Asevidence of basically what has been stated here today, it demonstrates poor economic managementskills. It also demonstrates how bad is the collective thinking of the members of the Labor Party,particularly the ones who are running the show. Revenue growth is achieved only by growingbusinesses and achieving above-the-line returns after expenditure.

The government must focus on sticking to the task and managing the state. Queenslanders havestated that they do not believe that Labor has the right to sell the assets. More specifically, Premier Blighwas not given a mandate to do so. This loss of trust has occurred because each Queenslander knowsthat privatisation is going to affect their lives and, basically, their children’s lives. I ask members toremember that, for a lot of people, life is difficult at this point, and it is always relatively difficult.

This type of thinking should extend back into the government. No amount of spin and nonsensefrom a populist government will ever defend the indefensible. The government has failed economicallyand this revenue bill is just another piece of evidence to demonstrate its failings. The Treasurer talkedabout the community. People are waiting for him with baseball bats. Not only has the Treasurer notdelivered on his promises; he has also consigned our constituents to a very difficult 25 years ahead.

The revenue bill also addresses the issue of payroll tax. This bill will increase the net payroll tax tofacilitate the Labor state government’s net return. The adjustment is apparently justified by saying that itis an attempt to avoid the issue of double taxation as a result of other jurisdictions possibly chargingpayroll tax as well. I see this amendment as a pre-emptive move in preparation for other states declaringtheir probable decision to progressively phase out payroll tax, as should be the case in the post-GSTworld we have had in Australia for 12 years now. Basically, a tired Labor government is attempting todefend its payroll tax base. I do not think it is worthwhile in the longer term, because we live in acompetitive environment. We have to understand that other states are running businesses as well.Businesses are increasingly ingenious with employment and payment strategies. This amendment willnot protect the payroll tax revenue base in the longer term. It is a stopgap measure and, really, this billshould be addressing the proposal of an effective replacement of a negative tax altogether. Realistically,we are in a competitive environment with other states. A lot of their debt structures are far better thanours. We have to understand that sweetheart deals—for example, on the issue of a headquarters—willonly increasingly lead to further sweetheart deals and they will be on issues of payroll tax and maybeeven on land tax.

Labor governments around Australia cannot offer cash because, after 10 years of Laborgovernment, there is no cash. I think the Treasurer needs to get the bean counters to start sharpeningtheir pencils and find methods of driving efficiencies and revenue increases using the GST. The GST ishard to avoid irrespective of the state in which the business is domiciled; people accept it, it is a growth


tax, it is an input tax, it is a once-only tax and it is 10 per cent. Payroll tax is none of these things. Whilstit is not nickels and dimes—and I think that is the point that the Treasurer was trying to make earlier—byand large the state needs to be looking at growing revenue by 50 per cent over the next 10 years,otherwise we will be in severe trouble.

The changes to the GST as proposed in the bill today are minor. The GST is where the realhorsepower of the state revenue growth is and it must be looked at constantly. Strangely, but not withoutany level of surprise, the Treasurer has decided to go down through the list of potential sources of othermeans of stamp duty equivalents and can shamelessly say that he has harnessed as many as he canfrom every area. None of these taxes is justified in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations historic document ofprinciples. They are not justified because they are negative taxes. These types of duties add nothing toprocess; they obstruct and penalise process. In doing so, as time goes by there will be an ever-increasing need to address both existing legislation and the areas of definition, as people legitimatelyseek to exempt themselves from these areas. Currently, the list is not extensive, but it includeseverything from insurance duty on life insurance to revising insurance duty on accident insurancerelating to workers compensation.

In fairness, there are a number of extensions and exemptions that have been detailed, mainly inrelation to property and especially in relation to transfer duties. The balance is driven, obviously, by theneed to have a sting in the tail and that is basically for the self-assessor—who is usually a registeredduty agent or assessor—and the expansion of the circumstances in which the Commissioner of StampDuties may suspend or cancel the assessor’s registration under the Duties Act 2001. This expansionthen leads to the two progressive steps that have been allowed for in the amendment—which are to besupported—and they are to introduce a new exemption from transfer duty and to facilitate therestructuring of ‘top hatting’, which has been mentioned today, certain stapled securities that meet therequirements of the Commonwealth capital gains tax rollover relief and other conditions. There is alsothe extension of transfer duty exemptions for a managed investment scheme property transfer betweena responsible entity and a primary custodian to include transactions involving acquisitions of trustinterests.

There is a variety of lesser changes that also would seem to be beneficial and may apply in someminor situations. They will benefit some individuals. The exemptions granted to charitable institutionshave been given some qualification—that being that the property granted exemption must be usedwithin six months and continue to be used for such purposes for at least a year to maintain theexemption. A discretion has been allowed for the commissioner, which is very good. Previously, he wasnot allowed discretion regarding his rules. That discretion has been retrospectively applied back to 1March 2002 for transfer duty. I think a lot of people will be breathing a massive sigh of relief. I supportthe actions taken here and I think that the shadow minister has spoken adequately and addressed thosechanges.

I would now like to speak to the issue of the first home owners grant and the reduction from$1 million to $750,000 in line with the changes made in the other states. I think this is a good idea but, inthe context of the Gold Coast, many first home owners there would not normally be deemed to be firsthome owners. They are mainly immigrants, they are mainly cashed up and they have owned homespreviously. But under the Australian terms, they are defined as first home owners. They have takenadvantage of the gap in the legislation. That has led to unfair competition in the second home market,where young people seeking a bigger home for their growing family are facing unfair competition in themarket. Unfortunately, the extra bonus makes a huge difference and it can result in a house purchasegoing to another person ahead of a local needy family. That is unfair and this action will level the playingfield a little.

Having said that, the average mortgage for a homeowner on the Gold Coast and in my electorateof Gaven is $450,000. Currently, first home owners under the current, more productive bonus areestimated to be 50 per cent in default. This is very worrying and, with an average five per cent decreasein valuations—as is noted in today’s Courier-Mail—many will be pushed over the edge. So I am worriedthat we might see homeless families as a result of mortgage defaults. That is socially and economicallybad for a society.

In general, I think there has been a lack of insight regarding the $1 million. That is not a great dealfor a home in a growth area, particularly now that that price is almost the norm in New South Wales,particularly in Sydney and Melbourne. Units are routinely changing hands for these amounts and homesequally. The justification of the reduction of the cap from $1 million to $750,000 is really unclear.Numerically, that is a very low number of applicants. Therefore, I think the number needs to be lookedat. I hear that it was raised as an issue today. I think it needs to be understood that there are somepeople who are not genuine first home owners but, equally, those numbers should be looked at and asensible change made.


The remaining major issue in this bill is the change to Suncorp via the State Financial Institutionsand Metway Merger Facilitation Act. In simple terms, the company will be allowed to appoint directors asand when it wishes, specifically with no restrictions on their domicile. Previously under the privatisationthere was no minimum number of directors required. The reasons given for the change are difficult tounderstand. Having said that, I am a federalist and I believe that any Australian should be able to apply.Equally having said that, for those who are possibly not Australians, this entity was started by TJ Ryanin 1915 for the benefit of all Queenslanders and should remain so.

Other issues have been comprehensively covered by most of the previous speakers. About90 per cent of all Queenslanders believe that we must keep our railways, ports, forests and motorwaysin Queensland under public ownership. Once an asset is sold it cannot always be bought back. We aremerely the custodians of our common heritage. Every time a revenue bill is introduced it follows thatthere will be close examination of revenue streams and there will be even closer examination in terms ofmicroscopic examination of strategy and what will be achieved out of it. We will be looking to seewhether the current Labor government can look beyond an electoral cycle of three years. As the BlighLabor government and previous premiers such as Beattie have demonstrated, they cannot look beyondthe three-year cycle. It is inventing crisis after crisis, whether it is true or not, and proposing solutions tothe problems it alone created. Today’s Australian Financial Review states—The Bligh government’s dogged refusal to hold a dual track process for privatising QR is deeply troubling. It flies in the face ofcompetitive processes. Over the longer term the Bligh government risks biting the hand that feeds it royalties and it frustrates thecoal companies that are planning to bid for QR’s valuable coal tracks.

Overall the AFR’s assessment is that in its years of government Labor’s ineptness has failed todeliver on infrastructure. It wasted money, it waited too long and it only did the lesser tasks. The currentprivatisation proposal is the poorest possible method and by any definition it must not go ahead. No-onesupports it and in this market we should be buyers or holders, not sellers.

Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—LNP) (4.11 pm): The Revenue and Other Legislation AmendmentBill was introduced into this place on 10 March—barely two weeks ago. It qualifies for debate in thischamber by the skin of its legislative teeth. That always makes me and those members on this side ofthe House suspicious. The fact that this legislation was brought into this place at breakneck speed bythe worst Treasurer in our state’s history and a Premier who is fast giving women in politics a bad namegives me even more reason to approach this legislation with caution.

I congratulate the shadow Treasurer on his wise and accurate assessment of the legislationbefore the House. The Treasurer has named 11 acts that will be amended by this bill. I do not propose togo through all of those acts. I thought it might be worthwhile to share with the House the definition of theword ‘revenue’. It is a noun. It is defined as ‘the entire amount of income before any deductions aremade’. That is one definition of revenue. A more appropriate definition of revenue for those in the LaborParty is ‘a bigger trough for those opposite and their corrupt mates to stick their snouts into’.

I managed to get staff from the Parliamentary Library to do some research on Queenslandtaxation revenue, and I thank them for their very thorough research that I will share with members today.It compares the year 2007-08 to 2008-09. Looking at the big picture, total Queensland taxation revenuein 2008-09 was around $10 billion. In the previous year, 2007-08, it was about $9.5 billion. Going downthe list of duties, transfer duties have increased by 5.8 per cent in 2007-08 from around $2.9 billion to$3.14 billion. Vehicle registration duties rose a massive 36.3 per cent from $380 million to $518 millionin 2008-09. There was a 4.4 per cent rise for insurance duties from $386 million to $403 million. Therewas a large decrease of 95 per cent in mortgage duties from 2007-08 to 2008-09: $335 million down to$15 million. Other duties leapt 133 per cent from $6 million to $14 million. That resulted in total duties ofabout $4 billion—a 0.3 per cent increase from 2007-08 to 2008-09.

While speaking to the Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, I note that gamingmachine taxes and levees increased by eight per cent from 2007-08 to 2008-09 from $535 million to$578 million. There was a 20 per cent increase in the health services levy from $39 million to $47 millionand a four per cent increase in lottery taxes from $202 million to $210 million. There was a 2.7 per centincrease in wagering taxes from $37 million to $38 million, a 5.2 per cent increase in casino taxes andlevees from $58 million to $61 million and a 6.3 per cent increase in Keno tax from $16 million to$17 million. Looking at other taxes, land taxes jumped a staggering 28.1 per cent from 2007-08 to 2008-09 from $622 million to $797 million—almost $800 million. It will be very interesting to compare thefigures from the previous years and the coming years. Motor vehicle registration went from $945 millionto $991 million, a rise of 4.9 per cent. A rise of 5.7 per cent occurred in the fire levy from $264 million to$279 million. Community ambulance cover, which is mentioned in this bill, went from $128 million to$133 million in 2008-09, a rise of 3.9 per cent. Guarantee fees rose from $84 million to $98 million, a16.7 per cent rise. Other taxes stayed relatively the same—$64 million to $65 million—making a grandtotal of $10.106 billion or an increase between those two years of 5.8 per cent.

It is proper and relevant during debate on this revenue bill to remind this place of the state of ourprojected revenues. Put simply, we are broke. Those opposite do not have a plan to stop us from goingeven more broke. The question that those opposite fail to answer or do not want to answer is who will


pay back the debt. If those opposite manage to maintain their hold on the Treasury bench, of course itwill be our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. The first thing the government can do, if it wantsto have an honest plan to pay back that debt, is to be honest about the size of the problem, yet we arenot even seeing that. The reason this Premier and her government are being forced to compromiseevery traditional political value they have ever stood for in their entire political career is that they do nothave another choice. The credit markets will further downgrade our already tarnished rating if thePremier fails to sell off the state’s assets, and that of course would mean sudden political death for thePremier instead of this lingering, smelling, grimacing bunch of political bodies opposite who aresomehow coming in here and putting on this facade of arrogance and haunting this place.

The government also needs to focus on economic growth, but how can there be economic growthin a state where families and small businesses are flogged with record increases in state taxes andcharges? How are we expected to grow, except of course by relying on the mining industry? That is oursaviour. The government is not looking after the primary industry sector at all. It tries to demonise thatsector every step of the way. In fact, it is throwing red tape at it which stops growth and the creation ofreal jobs. Anyone can go out and borrow $50 billion to create work, such as people painting rocks, butthose jobs are not sustainable and will not benefit our children and grandchildren.

The markets know we have lost our credit rating; the people of Queensland know it; at home Ihave a cushion on my couch that knows it. The only people who seem to ignore it, with their arrogantdismissive gestures and spin, are those opposite. The excuse is always the GFC. They say, ‘It’s theGFC’s fault.’ As we have heard from many people on the opposition benches, before the GFC we hadalready spent $1.5 billion more than we earned—the cupboard was bare—and we planned to borrow$64 billion. By 2014 we will be $85 billion in the red. I have been told that that means the state will haveto find about $100 million a day in interest. In the next couple of years we will have to find $5 billion ininterest payments alone. The Corrective Services budget is $1.2 billion, so that is four times the size ofthe Corrective Services budget and about half the size of the Health budget in interest payments alone.

The member for Toowoomba North interjected and said, ‘What plan have you got? How are yougoing to get the money?’ The first thing is to be honest about the size of the problem. Let us look at thecorruption issue. How much has corruption cost Queensland? How much has Labor waste costQueensland? We are going to target Labor corruption and waste. When talking about Labor waste, howcould I not mention the $270 million Traveston Dam. What about the Premier’s husband’s $200 milliondepartment? What has it done? It has come up with a form called the I-don’t-know form. I think it wascalled the sustainability form, but no-one fills it in now. The sole product of that $200 million departmentis more red tape to tie up our businesses so that they become unproductive.

Mr Bleijie: It has been amended three times. Mr MESSENGER: I take the interjection from the member for Kawana. It has been amended

three times. It is an absolute blight. Homeowners and real estate agents are tearing their hair out thatsomething so silly could pass through this place with the approval of those opposite. The minister for theenvironment thinks that paying more money in taxes to Kevin Rudd will stop the climate from changing.What has happened to the ETS? The minister went to Copenhagen, where it all turned to custard. Thenwe found out that by paying more money to Kevin Rudd we really were not going to stop the climatefrom changing. We must thank Barnaby Joyce and Tony Abbott, because they have saved businessesand working families a $20 billion tax. I wonder how many—

Ms Jones interjected.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Pitt): Order! Minister! Mr MESSENGER: Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was being savaged by a

chihuahua. When talking about Labor waste and corruption, I have to mention the Bundaberg ring-road.That $40 million project blew out to $100 million. What happened? How would the government operatein small business? If a manager or CEO estimated that a project would cost around $40 million or$50 million but then that figure doubled, they would be sacked. They would be thrown out. But what dowe have? We have a transport minister who says, ‘We have spent $100 million on the Bundaberg ring-road.’ In regional Queensland a road should cost about $1 million to $2 million per kilometre. This 15 to19 kilometre road cost $100 million.

Of course, not to disappoint the member for Everton, I have to mention the $30 million that thisgovernment is spending on a desalination plant at Agnes Water that is not needed or wanted. Even if Icould click my fingers and have that plant magically appear and be fully operational, the people wouldnot want it because they have enough water. One has to wonder why a project such as that has suchpolitical projection.

Mr Watt interjected.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Please resume your seat. Member for Everton, please return to

your seat if you are going to make comments. I do not need guidance from you either, Minister.


Mr MESSENGER: Let us turn to the asset sales. The Treasurer throws around our state moneylike the Deputy Premier throws around condoms at a university open day. Both Labor political activitiescreate similar outcomes in our state’s university dormitories and our state’s Treasury department: loudgasps, moans and heavy breathing. This bill is another nail in the coffin of our state’s public assets.

It is time that inside this chamber we heard the voices of reason and common sense being heardoutside the chamber. It is worthwhile quoting what people in the real world are saying about the assetsales. I hear the groans, gasps and loud exhalations of those opposite. It is worthwhile repeatingcommon-sense statements. One is as follows—Again you have failed to publish that these assets are not owned by Anna Bligh, they are owned by the people of Queensland, andany sale of anything without the people’s permission is invalid. I cannot go ahead and sell next door’s house. Anna Bligh has nomandate, as I have never seen it or agreed to it. Anna Bligh knows she has blown it. She knows her career in politics is—

A word I cannot repeat in this chamber—She knows the vast majority of voters cannot stand a bar of her or her antics. She is hanging on for all its worth just to make sureshe can keep her snout in the trough and collect as much public funded super and perks as possible. To get her out of parliamenthouse earlier would require a very strong straitjacket and a large bulldozer to do the job.

Government members interjected.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members to my right, the member for Burnett has the call. Mr MESSENGER: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the short time left to me, I would like to

draw the attention of the House to what the Treasurer says in relation to the bill. He talks about the firsthome buyers scheme. In the Burnett the first home owners are being forced to pay more in stategovernment taxes and charges because of this government’s inability to properly manage our publicfunds. The state government charges and the reduction of the 40 per cent local governmentinfrastructure charges have caused Burnett developers to pay about $20,000 per building block in taxesand charges. In Victoria the average amount is $5,000. When our first home buyers are applying fortheir grants, do they know and appreciate the fact that this government’s wasteful management of ourpublic finances is causing them to pay more for their first home?

The Treasurer also says that the merger was aimed at enhancing the availability of bankingfinance and insurance services throughout the state by creating financial institutions that were able touse its well-known brands to offer a wide range of banking finance and insurance products in anincreasingly competitive market. Just like the Treasurer, I would like to make some comments andobservations about the availability of banking finance, especially when it comes to small to mediumsized business that we must rely on to get us out of this financial hole. In a nutshell, the Burnett is doingit very tough in the current financial times because there is a credit squeeze that all banks, includingSuncorp Metway, are responsible for. In his speech, the Treasurer said that on 28 October at Suncorp’sannual general meeting shareholders passed a vote to amend the company’s constitution to change theresidential requirements that apply to Suncorp directors.

Frankly, I do not care where the manager of Suncorp comes from as long as he starts giving smallto medium sized businesses an even break and shows some respect to long-term customers who haveshown loyalty to the bank during the good times. For example, I was recently asked this question by aBurnett businessman: who would you rather owe money to—the bank or the Taxation Office? Whichorganisation would be more likely to behave in a decent, common-sense and compassionate manner?After talking to local Burnett businessmen, I am convinced that if I had to owe money to either of the twoI would choose the Taxation Office. I may be wrong, but I am very interested to hear from as many smalland medium sized businesses as I can about their banking and tax experiences.

I think what we are seeing now is a dangerous credit crisis and squeeze created by the big banks’very bloody-minded attitude to relatively small and minor breaches of loans. This credit crisis—and Ibelieve it is a self-made credit crisis—is threatening the viability of many good small to mediumbusinesses. It seems as though the big banks are making record profits but they are now becomingmore miserly and mercenary than usual. For example, I spoke to a medium sized plant and heavymachinery hire operator who, like most businesses, had a diversity of incomes from propertyinvestments and also his workshop. This gentleman had built his business up from scratch and hadbeen employing and training people for the last 40 years. He needs a break.

In closing, I ask this question of the Treasurer: how many businesses have gone bankrupt andhow many jobs have been lost because Queensland businesses have been forced to pay payroll andland tax? It is time that this government also showed some compassion to our small businesses whoneed that break right now in the most dire of times. How many small businesses have gone bankruptwhile waiting for this government to pay its bills? This government is not a good payer of its bills. It dragsout the payment of its bills because it is going bankrupt.

Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (4.31 pm): I rise to speak to the Revenue and OtherLegislation Amendment Bill. I wish to address two areas without in any way trivialising the otheramendments. The first one is fairly predictable, and that is the amendments to the InfrastructureInvestment (Asset Restructuring and Disposal) Act 2009. This will be a further step in the privatisation ofthose assets that was brought before this parliament at the end of last year.


Whilst I do not have a cushion at home that knows the ins and outs of privatisation, I do have a lotof electors—residents who live in the electorate of Gladstone—who are vehemently opposed to thisproposal. Only one person has said to me that they are in support of this proposal and that was astatement along the lines of, ‘Oh well, I suppose if they’ve got to do it. They’ve got to be able to pay thebills.’ Further conversation about issues like recurrent income from Queensland Rail coal freightcertainly puts a different light on the considerations of that person. However, overwhelmingly, thefeedback I have received in my electorate is 100 per cent opposed to the proposed privatisation,particularly of coal freight.

This bill also deals with employee security and the preservation of rights of transferredemployees. At the risk of repeating myself, because I know that I have said this in this chamber before,I do not have confidence in the theoretically preserved rights of transferred employees. In a microcosm,we have seen the transfer of employees with Maritime Safety Queensland. At least one employee in myelectorate came to me feeling betrayed by that process and feeling that their terms and conditions ofemployment certainly were not preserved and that they had a significant loss of employment conditions.That was discussed at some length with the minister of the day.

I again refer to the issue of the Suncorp Metway merger. The then Treasurer, Mrs Sheldon, andothers in a meeting gave me assurances that people involved in Suncorp Metway would not lose theirjobs and indeed that the service would grow and that protection would be given to those employees.After the privatisation there was a rationalisation of the branches because there were a significantnumber of branches across the banking sector when you looked at all of the entities that wereamalgamated—that is, Suncorp Building Society, Suncorp Finance Ltd, Suncorp Insurance andFinance, QIDC and the Metway Bank. In particular, Suncorp and Metway had branches duplicated insome areas and at least one of those branches was often closed and there was not full employment forthe employees.

I have grave misgivings about undertakings that are given, albeit legislatively, to preserve therights and conditions of employees, because time has shown that those assurances may be able to begiven in the short term but they are certainly not able to be given in the medium to long term. Theycannot be sustained. Indeed, when those branches were closed and I raised it with the then Treasurer,Mrs Sheldon, her response at the time—and it was accurate; it certainly was not inaccurate—was that,as it was a private entity, she could not influence the longer term retention of those employees. Thatwas, I think, a betrayal of those employees, and I believe that over time with the proposed privatisationof these assets employees will be affected. I acknowledge that the Premier has said that, with QR coalfreight being privatised, more jobs will be created. I again stress that that was the mantra when Telstrawas privatised. We saw, and we are still seeing, a significant loss of jobs—often thousands at a time—with Telstra and a corresponding diminution of service, particularly in rural and regional Queensland.

I have had to take note of the strength of opposition from the unions in my electorate. I would notsay that my voting stance on things has always accorded with the unions. That would be a greatfalsehood. But I have been surprised at the strength of their feeling against this privatisation decision,given their long-term allegiance and support for the ALP and the decisions that the ALP has made. Thatin itself is very telling. More importantly than that, the mums and dads are the ones who have said to methat they are opposed to the privatisation. As other speakers have said, it is like selling the goose thatlays the golden egg, because QR coal freight is one of the income-generating entities, particularly in myelectorate. Let me make it clear that I am opposed to that privatisation, as I have been in the past.

The only other issue I raise is the small amendment in this bill to allow directors of the SuncorpMetway entity to not live in Queensland, however the managing director must ordinarily reside inQueensland. Again, without harking back too much, one of the safeguards that was put in place toensure that Queenslanders were not disadvantaged by the privatisation of Suncorp Metway was that itwould be enshrined in legislation that the managing director and directors would be required to residehere. That is no slight on the current Treasurer. He is making decisions in the current economic climateand in the current business climate. But it was a safeguard for the people of Queensland that is beingdismantled in this bill. So in terms of assurances that are given in this place to members of thecommunity who are significantly impacted by decisions that are made here—votes that are taken here—we can only have partial confidence that their interests are being looked after and that their future canbe guaranteed.

On the basis of the concerns that have been expressed to me repeatedly in my electorateopposed to the sale, particularly of QR coal freight but also to the assets listed for asset sale in the past,I will be opposing this legislation. The argument has always been that there has to be revenuegenerated for new infrastructure for the state. I believed initially when this was being sold that theincome was going to be used to pay down debt. The reality is that, from the point of view of myelectorate, people work in industries that generate a great deal of income for this state and for thisnation. They regularly say—and rightly so—that they deserve reinvestment of some of that revenue inthe electorate in which it is generated. That is not occurring—certainly not sufficiently. But they do notsupport and remain vehemently opposed to the privatisation of these assets, and that part of the bill I willbe opposing.


Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (4.40 pm): I rise in support of the Revenue and OtherLegislation Amendment Bill. The ROLA Bill amends a variety of acts, with a view to clarifying operationsof legislation, updating or correcting superseded terms or references and giving force to administrativearrangements, some of which are already in place.

One of the measures that has been raised by other speakers affects the quantum of the firsthome owners grant. This grant is well known for lending assistance to first home buyers to enter amarket that, depending on the region or, indeed, the suburb one wishes to purchase into, can be quite afinancial challenge. This is especially so in post global financial crisis days when banks and lendinginstitutions are demanding larger cash deposits upfront to secure mortgages. In areas like Mackay,where mining and related industries have artificially inflated property prices, entering the housing marketcan be especially difficult. The first home owners grant is, in many ways, a godsend to those looking topurchase their first home in what would otherwise be an even more difficult property market.

Even given the high cost of available housing in places like Mackay, there is no circumstance thatI can think of that would require a first home buyer to settle on a house costing more than $750,000.I am sure my constituents would say that any person able to make repayments on a home costing, say,$800,000 or more should not receive taxpayer help to fund the deposit. It is worth remembering thehistory of the first home owners grant, which on its introduction in the year 2000 had no maximum priceattached to it. In January this year Queensland instituted a cap of $1 million. To bring the scheme intoline with New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, this legislationreduces that cap to $750,000. This is both sensible and, I believe, reasonable.

Speaking briefly to another aspect of this bill, I come to the amendments to the Trans-TasmanMutual Recognition (Queensland) Act, which brings about the common-sense outcome of making thisact redundant. Currently Queensland is the only jurisdiction that relies on an act of parliament toendorse regulations made under the Commonwealth’s Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act. Theseamendments bring Queensland into line with other jurisdictions by removing the requirement for an actof parliament for Queensland to endorse Commonwealth regulation amending the goods andoccupations that are exempt from the operation of the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Scheme. Ibelieve this amendment will streamline processes, save time and therefore provide efficiencies, andallow greater participation for Queensland in the review process. With those few comments, I commendthis bill to the House.

Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—LNP) (4.43 pm): I rise to make a brief contribution to the debate onthe Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. The bill amends a number of revenue and financialstatutes in Queensland, amongst them the Infrastructure Investment (Asset Restructuring and Disposal)Act 2009. This act facilitates the sale of a number of state owned assets, amongst them ForestryPlantations Queensland, Queensland Motorways Ltd, the Port of Brisbane Corporation, QueenslandRail’s above- and below-rail coal network, and the Ports Corporation of Queensland’s Abbot Point CoalTerminal.

The people of Queensland have made their feelings in respect of this proposal by the Bligh Laborgovernment abundantly clear. They strongly oppose it. They oppose the sale of the state owned assetsfor a variety of reasons but, above all, because they are outraged at the duplicity and the dishonesty ofPremier Bligh and Treasurer Fraser, who said one thing before the state election in March 2009 and didanother after they had won another term on false pretences. For this duplicity and dishonesty, the Blighgovernment has lost the confidence and the trust of the people of Queensland.

The explanatory notes accompanying this bill state that these amendments facilitate thedivestment of state owned assets by way of 99-year leases. The bill proposes to insert a section into theInfrastructure Investment (Asset Restructuring and Disposal) Act to deal with a number of issuesrelating to the change of status of government owned assets as a result of their divestment. As theseentities will no longer be publicly owned, the bill proposes to insert a new section into the act to affordcertain protections to the government and these entities. Without this new provision, it would appearsuch a change in ownership would otherwise trigger certain contractual rights as far as third parties areconcerned where they may be required to give consent to the change of ownership.

I am particularly interested in this issue as it relates to the divestment by the government ofForestry Plantations Queensland. In 2006, Forestry Plantations Queensland took over from the formerdepartment of forestry within the department of primary industries as the manager of the Queenslandgovernment’s softwood and hardwood forest plantations. The 2008-09 annual report of FPQ indicatesthat it presently has about $1.17 billion in biological assets, being the trees themselves, on about211,000 hectares of land. This is a significant amount of state owned land. The same annual report alsoindicates that the land those trees stand on is valued at about $216 million.

FPQ carries out its forestry activities principally on crown land allocated for forest productionpurposes. FPQ is granted full and exclusive access to state plantation forests under a deed of profit àprendre to carry out its operations in accordance with the Forestry Act 1959. Only land controlled byForestry Plantations Queensland is recognised as an asset on the balance sheet of Forestry PlantationsQueensland in its annual report. However, FPQ pursues activities in hardwood plantation in joint


partnerships with private landowners. FPQ has established several thousand hectares of hardwoodestate that are mainly planted on private land accessed through land rental agreements. ForestryPlantations Queensland pays these private landowners a quarterly rent in advance in return for theiraccess to this land.

Approximately 25 years is required to produce a hardwood sawlog crop, and FPQ establishes anagreement with the landowner that legally separates the trees from the land. The question I wanted topose to the Treasurer today is exactly what are the implications for the divestment by the Bligh Laborgovernment of FPQ for private landowners who have signed 25-year contracts with FPQ to establishhardwood plantations on their properties? There are obviously some implications, otherwise clause 87of this bill would not be necessary. Would the Treasurer be able to advise the House if there are anyother contractual rights third parties are able to exercise arising from a change of ownership of aformerly government owned corporation? If landowners who presently have a contract with FPQ for theestablishment of hardwood plantations on their properties will be deprived of the right to withholdconsent to a change of ownership, does the Bligh government plan to provide any compensation tothese landowners if they are disadvantaged as a result?

What are the implications for the lack of certainty these landowners have experienced or mayexperience in entering into these contracts with FPQ? Should everybody be cautious about entering intocontracts with a government owned corporation in Queensland when the Bligh government is clearlyprepared to legislate to deprive contractual partners of certain rights to withhold consent to a change inownership of a state government owned entity with which they have a contract? This is an interestingquestion. I invite the Treasurer to comment on it and especially on why it may not compensate thoselandowners if they are subsequently disadvantaged as a result of a change of ownership of an entitywith which they have a contract.

The other issue I wish to canvass is the poor timing of the divestment by the Bligh Laborgovernment of FPQ. As I mentioned earlier, the biological assets of FPQ were valued in its 2008-09annual report at about $1.17 billion. However, the Bligh government ought to recognise that it may notrealise a windfall of this magnitude given current market conditions in respect of plantation forestrytimber or land available for lease for this purpose. The recent collapse of plantation forestryoperations—namely, the managed investment schemes such as Timbercorp and Great Southern—hasput thousands of hectares worth of plantation forestry product, that is the timber, on the market andthousands of hectares of forestry land on the market. This means that the Bligh government is looking tosell Forestry Plantations Queensland when there is a glut in the market of both plantation timber andland.

The disposal of FPQ is the first of the Bligh government’s proposed divestments of governmentowned assets to be progressed against the express will of the people of Queensland. So far we havelandowners with existing contracts with FPQ possibly being disadvantaged without compensation andthe prospect of an asset being sold when there is a glut in the market for both plantation forestry productand land. This is typical of the utter mismanagement of the affairs of this state by the Bligh government.What other failures can the people of Queensland expect with the other asset sales to follow, includingsuch prized publicly owned assets as our major ports and Queensland Rail?

Mr DICKSON (Buderim—LNP) (4.51 pm): I rise to speak in the debate on the Revenue and OtherLegislation Amendment Bill 2010. What we have before us is legislation that addresses a whole rangeof revenue statutes. Buried amongst the amendments contained in the bill are amendments to theInfrastructure Investment (Asset Restructuring and Disposal) Act 2009—in other words, changes thatwill allow the government to proceed with its asset sale. Anyone would think that the sale of state ownedassets requires just another administrative change like the many other changes outlined in the clausesin this bill.

The sale of state owned assets is the worst economic decision ever made by this stategovernment. Selling off the farm to pay for debt is a desperate measure. Like the farmer selling off hisfarm, the government is depriving the next generation of the assets that should be theirs and that wouldprovide income and security into the future. But at least the farmer could probably blame the drought orcircumstances beyond his control. This government only has itself to blame. It had all of the boom yearswhen revenue was pouring into government coffers. But what did it do? It spent money like there was notomorrow. It ignored all of the sound economic principles. It did not plan for the inevitable—that is, thatthe good times would not last forever. This government did not plan for the future so now it is sneakinginto legislation amendments that will let it sell off the farm. If this government is so bankrupt of goodeconomic ideas that it jumps for the easy fix to its debt problems, I wonder whether it would manage thefamily farm in the same way. I am sure it certainly would not run the family farm the way it has run thisgovernment and this state.

We have already seen how those opposite manage privatisation. Look at what has happenedwith electricity and water. The former Premier assured Queenslanders that the sell-off of electricityretailing would not lead to higher costs. What a joke that turned out to be! Not only do we have higherprices but we have countless problems. Only yesterday the Energy Ombudsman was warning about the


shonky practices of door-to-door salesmen trying to sign up customers. New connections are nothappening because customers have to talk to the retailer instead of directly to the power supplier. Thenwe have the issue of water. This is another great example of how this government managesprivatisation. The Sunshine Coast council leads by example when it comes to good water management.It invested in infrastructure and created a strong, secure water supply for its ratepayers. Now thegovernment has set up a one-way pipeline to deliver water to Brisbane from the coast. It has set up aseparate water authority—think of all of the costs associated with that—and in the process it has takenaway a major revenue stream of the council. What will the result of all of this be? It will be higher pricescaused by a government’s poor decision making and poor planning. Now it is going to sell off more keyassets. The public float of Queensland Rail’s rolling stock and track network is going to be a disaster forthe biggest customer of QR—the coal industry.

Then we have the sell-off of Queensland Motorways. One does not need to be a genius to workout how the potential buyers will make that business pay. It will be through higher tolls. Just likeelectricity privatisation, the government will shrug its shoulders while the people of Queensland foot thebill again. Just like the people of the Sunshine Coast who are paying more for water thanks to thegovernment’s intervention, motorists will pay more under this measure. This is a crime that is beingcommitted on the people of Queensland. We should not let this process pass us by. This governmentcan stop this any time it feels like it. It just has to have the heart to listen to some of the people fromwhom it is taking these assets. Then there is the introduction of the 99-year lease option. That is asneaky way of pretending that it is not really selling off the farm.

It is time this government had a good look at its plans to sell off Queensland assets. The unionsand the people of Queensland have been making it very clear that they do not want to sell off the farm.The government needs to start listening and come up with better economic policies, because the way itis going about things, as the member for Burnett said earlier, it is going to send this great state of oursbroke. Nobody in this House really wants to do that. The government needs to take responsibility for itsactions and it needs to do it in an appropriate manner. It is like the banks which got away with bluemurder until somebody pulled the reins. The government has to think about what it is doing to this state,because it is heading in the wrong direction.

Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—LNP) (4.56 pm): The Revenue and Other LegislationAmendment Bill amends a large number of acts, and I want to speak about four aspects of this bill inparticular. The first is the issue of the cap for the first home owners grant being reduced from $1 millionto $750,000. Last year we saw the first home owners grant reduced from $14,000 to $7,000. In thiscase, we are looking at the cap on the value of homes being reduced from $1 million to $750,000.Depending on what part of Queensland one is in, a house valued at $750,000 could be considered avery dear home, but in some of the more expensive parts of Queensland it could be considered a middleof the range home.

I agree that there does have to be a cap. Ultimately a cap has to be set at a certain amount. It was$1 million and it is now being reduced to $750,000. Obviously, the government had previously been ableto afford it but it is no longer able to afford it and therefore it has reduced the cap from $1 million to$750,000. We have to bear in mind in determining these caps that first home buyers often do not havethe total amount required to buy the home. Generally they have a deposit. We saw, particularly prior tothe global financial crisis, many young couples who had perhaps graduated from university ordeveloped in their profession and receiving substantial incomes buy homes that were expensive whenthey had a relatively small deposit. Sometimes the first home owner grant assisted them with someaspects of buying a home that they may not have been able to meet immediately. For example, it mayhave helped them with their legal costs or their stamp duty or ensured that they had the wherewithal forthe bank to provide them with a loan.

The other aspect of the first home owner grant is that it not only helps young people to get into ahouse, which is important, it also stimulates the building and construction industry. Some of the majoremployers in most areas are the builders, contractors and subbies. They certainly are in Toowoombaand the surrounding area. It is important to keep a certain turnover of housing. There can be times whenthere is a lot of commercial work—and there is certainly a lot of commercial work around now. However,in a few months time we will see the completion of all the schools and libraries funded under the federalgovernment’s package. Suddenly, what has been a very large commercial construction program willcease and builders everywhere will be looking for alternative work for their staff and subbies. The firsthome owner grant has always been something that not only assists people in getting their first home butalso provides for employment. I think it is something we have to consider carefully.

I know that $750,000 appears to be a large amount for a house. Certainly in Toowoomba it wouldbe getting towards the top of the range. In other parts of the state—around the capital cities, in some ofthe coastal areas and so on—that can represent quite an expensive home. The cost is partly driven, ofcourse, by the price of land. It is not something in this bill that we are opposing, but I make that particularcomment.


Another aspect of this bill deals with Suncorp, as it is called now. It relates to a resolution of ameeting of shareholders applying to directors. That resolution requires that only the managing directorof Suncorp be ordinarily a resident of Queensland. I know that this bill is responding to the wishes ofthose people who voted at that particular meeting. One of the things about Suncorp is that its businesshas traditionally developed from within Queensland and it has expanded over recent times. It has had avery strong Queensland base. Much of that Queensland base is based on insurance.

We are a state that is subject to the vagaries of climate such as floods and cyclones, and we haveseen all of those recently. I would think it would be important for an organisation such as Suncorp tohave Queensland expertise within its board, particularly with regard to understanding the ebb and flowof insurance and understanding the climate of this state and the things that have to be insured. Theremust be some great corporate experience in the minds of a number of senior Queensland people whohave worked in Suncorp or who have association with the insurance industry or the state generally. Iwould think it would be important for them to maintain some expertise. I do note that Suncorp hasemployed a CEO who has been getting around the state and attending various meetings. He does havesome links with Toowoomba and was educated at the University of Southern Queensland. Hopefully,that Queensland expertise will be of benefit to the company.

There are also aspects in the bill dealing with the Payroll Tax Act. I would like to join with some ofmy colleagues who have spoken about payroll tax. I recognise how all the different components oftaxation go towards our state income. However, if anything is a tax on people expanding a business, it ispayroll tax. Whilst there is a threshold under which people do not pay payroll tax, once you hit that limit itis a great disincentive to businesses that are growing and employing people. Depending upon where thebar sits, usually once a business grows to around 18 to 20 employees it starts to hit the payroll taxthreshold.

Someone I know in Toowoomba has built up a stock and station agency. It is a very difficult anddemanding business. He expanded that business throughout the Darling Downs and the south-west towhat it is today: a successful business. He told me how hard it was to grow and develop that businessand employ people—whether it be people who work in the offices of all of the branches they establish,whether it be auctioneers at the saleyards or whether it be stockmen working in the saleyards, travellingmerchandise salesmen or insurance people. He said it was very difficult to grow that business andensure they made enough money every week to pay their 18 or 20 staff. As he decentralised thebusiness into different country towns and faced the issue of payroll tax, he said it was like hitting a wall.Suddenly he felt that he was penalised for being successful and for doing something for the region andthe state. He felt he was slugged because he had grown the business to that extent.

I think payroll tax is something that should always be kept in mind. If anything is a deterrent toemployment and to small businesses growing into medium sized businesses, decentralising and beingof real value to our state, it is payroll tax.

Mr Shine: What would you replace it with? Mr HORAN: I made the point at the outset. I made the point that all of these taxes are different

components of the income of the state. I am not saying we should tear it away or whatever, but weshould always recognise that—with issues like the GST or the growth tax—whenever there is anopportunity to examine a form of taxation that can provide for a stronger state in terms of privatebusinesses growing, in terms of people being employed and in terms of decentralisation, that is the taxthat should be looked at. I know that government on both sides have often looked at it simply in terms ofthe level of the bar. That is, can the bar be raised so that businesses can get a few more people underthe bar before they move over that threshold of having to pay payroll tax on top of all the otherregistration fees, charges, rates and costs that they have to pay?

One of the other acts amended by this bill is the Infrastructure Investment (Asset Restructuringand Disposal) Act. Also associated with that is the Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act. Both ofthese acts relate to the disposal, or the privatisation, of assets by the Bligh Labor government. What wehave seen over the past eight or so years is one of the most disgraceful examples of financialmanagement of Queensland that we have seen in the history of this state. As has been said manytimes, when we entered the global financial crisis and even a couple of years before the election, wewere facing a predicted debt of $65 billion. We found out after the election that the debt held by thisgovernment and its corporations was going to be $85 billion by 2012—and that has been revised to$84.5 billion in the midterm review. The bulk of that $85 billion—$65 billion—was accumulated prior tothe global financial crisis, at a time when this state had some of the best years in its history.

How has this debt come about? Much of it has come about through wanton waste. There havebeen examples given of the Traveston Dam. Hundreds of millions of dollars were wasted on thatparticular issue. There was also the waste on the western corridor recycled water pipeline, which ranabout $1 billion over budget. It was a project that was rushed into, that was panic stricken and panicdriven. Both the Treasurer and the infrastructure minister in charge of that came into this parliamentmaking statements about when it would be finished. So then everybody knew the government was overa barrel and had to get the project finished on time. Some of the examples of costs in that particularproject are absolutely disgraceful.


Any private company which had cost overruns and which had engaged in some of the wantonwaste that occurred on that project would be run out of town. Anyway, the end point of it all is that thepeople of Queensland and their children face $85 billion of debt, which amounts to somewhere in theorder of around about $13 million or $14 million per day in interest, which has to be found every day. Soevery day the Treasurer gets up and puts his feet in his slippers—seven days a week—he has to think,‘Where’s $14 million in interest coming from?’

But that is only part of the story because, on top of that, all debt has to be repaid. Eventually, thatmoney has to be repaid. This debt will be a burden on the people of Queensland, their children and theirgrandchildren for decades and decades to come. It is often said that if you do not control debt then debtcontrols you. We are seeing debt controlling what this government is able to do or is not able to do. Debtis the reason this government has been forced to sell income-earning assets such as the Brisbane port;the best income-producing area of Queensland Rail, that is, the coal freight lines; the forest plantations,which have earned good income; and the motorway tolling system. Just a couple of years back we sawthis Labor government sell off three other income-earning assets. The government sold off the MackayAirport, the Cairns Airport and its 12 per cent share in the Brisbane port. They were all income-earningassets. Once they are sold they are gone and the income they generated has gone forever.

Throughout the era of the National Party government leading to the Goss government one of theprinciples that made Queensland a financially sound state was to fund social assets out of budgetsurpluses. The budget was worked constructively so that there was a surplus to pay for the social assetsthat we must have, such as our schools and our hospitals that are so important. They should be fundedin that way. But to sell off income-earning assets, as happened under the Labor government underPremier Beattie and Deputy Premier Anna Bligh, to build social infrastructure that does not provide areturn means that you are selling off that which can fund hospitals, which can fund the surplus, whichcan provide the funds to pay for any moderate debt that the government has. Those assets are goneforever. The income that they produce has gone forever. Now we are having to sell more assets—thistime prime assets—to try to deal with this massive mountain of debt.

Not only that, some of the assets that are being sold are themselves loaded up with debt. Owingto the financial mismanagement of this state government, over the past few years governmentcorporations have been loaded up with debt. They have been taken to the highest level of the barometerso that not only are those government corporations repaying debt that has been loaded on to them butalso they are forced to pay a dividend to the government. That is what is for sale in some instances—institutions that are loaded up with debt and which also have an obligation to pay a dividend to the state.

So we are selling off these assets. Their value is not the amount they might be worth, becausethey are heaped up with debt. On top of that, the government has taken some pretty sneaky action,such as increasing the toll so that the motorways can be a little bit more attractive to a potentialpurchaser. The motorways are not particularly attractive at the moment, because they are loaded upwith debt. That is what this government has been doing during its many years of financialmismanagement.

It is the average Queenslander who pays all of these extra costs that have been brought about bythe debt. When the motorways get privatised, extra dollars will be heaped on to the toll. I ask membersto imagine someone who lives around Ipswich or Goodna and who has to go over the Gateway Bridgeto work every day or, in the course of running their small business, has to travel over the GatewayBridge every day and back to go down to Beenleigh or the Gold Coast in the course of their business.They are going to pay an extra $3 each way. That is $6 a day on top of what they pay already. That isanother $30 a week that they have to get out of their pocket because the government has thrown thisextra charge on to the tolls to make the motorways look more attractive to a potential buyer.

This sale of assets is disgraceful. It has been done as a fire sale. No wonder the people ofQueensland are arcing up, because they are not seeing the money go from the sale of one income-earning asset to another income-earning asset that might see the state develop. If a rail line had beensold and that money was put into something else—be it a port, or other infrastructure, or another linethat kept the state growing, or the money was put into things that were not able to be done by privateenterprise—then people might accept some sort of argument for it. But in this case we are seeingincome-earning assets sold and that income is going to be lost forever to this state.

The legacy of Labor for this state is that at the time of the next election there will be an $85 billionor $84.5 billion debt. There will be predicted budget deficits in the order of $3 billion or more in thatparticular year. That is the legacy of this Labor government. I will never forget that during the lastelection campaign one voter, who had obviously voted for Labor, came up to me and said, ‘I don’t knowwhat you’re going on about debt for.’ I asked, ‘Why is that?’ She said, ‘Oh, its only government debt.’ Isaid, ‘You have to pay the government’s debt because the government’s debt is the people’s debt.’

The people of Toowoomba are paying another 10c a litre for their fuel. They are paying thedearest registration fee for their cars in Australia. That fee used to be the cheapest in Australia. In thepast three years electricity prices have gone up by about 50 per cent. Gas charges have gone throughthe roof—pensioners are unable to pay for their gas—because the government sold off its gas arm. It


was out of money, so it sold off its gas arm. Water charges are going through the roof, because thegovernment has put in place a three-tiered system in which it has control of the wholesale system andthe pipeline system. We are seeing charges going up all the time. It is the people who endure the painfor the waste, the mismanagement, the debt and the deficits that this government has delivered.

I agree with our shadow minister that this is one section of the bill that should be opposed. Weoppose this privatisation—the sell-off of our income-earning assets. I look forward to supporting theshadow minister.

Mr BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (5.16 pm): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Revenue andOther Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 before the House, which was introduced by the honourable theTreasurer. The bill amends various revenue statutes, including the First Home Owner Grant Act 2000,the Community Ambulance Cover Act 2003, the Land Tax Act 1915 and the Payroll Tax Act 1971. At theoutset, I want to say that I will be supporting this legislation before the House, but I will outline someconcerns.

We all know that this government has gone bust on the back of a mining boom. In 12 years, theBeattie-Bligh Labor governments have squandered the state’s budget bottom line, which had beeninjected with a record amount of mining royalties and GST revenue. State debt has continued to spiralout of control. That has subsequently cost the state our AAA credit rating and has ensured that eachQueenslander now pays $1.2 billion each year in interest payments as a result of Labor’smismanagement of the state’s finances. That is $85 billion in debt and Queenslanders pay $1.2 billion ininterest payments each year. We had one of the biggest mining and GST royalties in Australia and wenow have a AA credit rating.

As outlined by the shadow Treasurer, the member for Clayfield, the LNP is opposing thoseclauses of the bill that relate to the Infrastructure Investment (Asset Restructuring and Disposal) Act2009. These amendments pertain to the grossly unpopular asset sales program that was initiated by thisgovernment in an effort to recover the ballooning budget bottom line, thanks to the economicmismanagement of Labor governments over the past 12 years. These asset sales are nothing morethan fire sales. The government claims to the people of Queensland that this is all part of a broadereconomic strategy. There is no economic strategy in this; the point of the matter is that the government,through the incompetence of the Premier and the Treasurer—and the Premier was the Treasurer duringthe time of the Beattie government—went bust in a boom. They are incompetent in the mismanagementof our state finances. There is nothing intelligent or strategic about the sale of these money-makingassets. It is simply to pay a debt that should not have been incurred in the first place.

Only two weeks ago we were reminded of how unpopular the asset sales program is across thestate and with the trade union movement in particular as its members marched outside this parliament.The Prime Minister is so concerned that the state government’s unpopularity will translate into a swingagainst federal Labor at the upcoming federal election he orchestrated the cancellation of theQueensland State Labor conference of 2010. Senior Labor ministers have also come out disagreeingwith the way the state Labor government is dealing with Queensland assets. What else would oneexpect from one of the most unpopular government policies of the century from the most unpopularmember of this place?

Mr Roberts: How is the Leader of the Opposition’s popularity rating going? Mr BLEIJIE: The Leader of the Opposition’s popularity is one of the highest in opposition. How is

the Premier’s popularity rate going?Government members interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: I take the interjection from the honourable the Attorney. What is your rating? What

are you polling, Attorney? We all know what is happening here. The only leadership that has to bediscussed in this place is the Premier’s leadership, not the opposition’s.

Mr Robertson interjected.Mr BLEIJIE: I take the interjection from the Minister for Natural Resources. Two weeks ago in this

place he introduced a piece of legislation and then came in and amended it 60 times. Do not let meremind him of that incompetence. When we are talking about incompetence in Treasury, let me notremind him of that.

I will get back to the bill. The bill relates to the Infrastructure Investment (Asset Restructuring andDisposal) Act 2009. This part of the bill will not be supported by the LNP as it is a direct result of thedeceit of this government in the aftermath of the state election last year. Changes to the Duties Act 2001regarding ‘top-hatting’ relief for the property industry will enable Queensland to continue to beinternationally competitive in a global economy. It will also reduce compliance costs in terms of auditingand financial reporting and management fees for the responsible entities. With the changes included inthis legislation now applying to a single entity rather than for each head entity, Queensland will continueto be increasingly attractive to foreign investment. I am happy to support this exemption which greatlysupports the Queensland economy.


I would like to address the component of this amendment bill that relates to the First Home OwnerGrant Act 2000. The bill before the House reduces the cap on the value of homes on which the grant ispayable from $1 million to $750,000 to align with the caps in other jurisdictions and to allow the sharingof first home owner grant information with the Commissioner of Taxation under reciprocal arrangements.This is an extension of the federal Labor government’s socialist agenda of repealing middle classwelfare by means testing the baby bonus and continually trying to legislate changes to the private healthinsurance rebate. This provision of the bill is Queensland Labor’s attempt at getting in on the act.

What puzzles me is how the Bligh government can determine those in the community who shouldbe encouraged to purchase their first homes and those who should not. When are those opposite goingto come to the conclusion or the realisation that socialism just does not work?

Mr Fraser: When are you going to come to the conclusion? Mr BLEIJIE: I came to the conclusion that socialism does not work based on Labor’s 12-year

history in government. We can clearly see it now with the debt of the Rudd government. The problem isthat in Queensland and all across Australia the socialists get into power, they send the country and thestate broke and then the conservatives—in this case the Liberal National Party—will have to get backinto power and reduce the burden on each Queenslander that has been placed on them by thisgovernment as a result of its 12 years of mismanagement of finances.

The purpose of the first home owner grant is to encourage the purchase of homes by those whohave never purchased property before. The Australian dream has long been regarded as the ability ofAustralians to own and live in their own home. My fear as a state representative and as a parent is theincreasing difficulty on the part of current and future generations of Queenslanders in being able toafford to live that Australian dream. Although I acknowledge that the grant has some impacts on themarket, its underlying premise is to encourage more Queenslanders to save for and purchase their ownhome. As the youngest LNP member of this House, I can say that many of my friends are in the currentgeneration who are struggling to buy their first home. I know many people who have made use of thefirst home owner grant to do so.

It has always been my fundamental belief that the government should encourage people and notrestrict them. This First Home Owner Grant Act amendment is nothing but government restriction, whichI most certainly dislike. People should not be punished or left out of a scheme because of their ability toafford a first home regardless of the price. Reducing the cap is reducing the incentive for someQueenslanders, the only aim being to comply with other states in Australia. Just because it may be inplace somewhere else does not mean that it is good practice and certainly cannot be considered as fair.

I support the provisions of the bill that allow for the former publicly owned company Suncorp tohave the restrictions removed that would allow it to move its headquarters to Sydney and enableSuncorp to amend its company constitution’s requirement that the company director be a resident ofQueensland. While I always support Queensland jobs, Suncorp is not a Queensland government entityand therefore the Queensland government should not impose regulations that restrict the growth of thecompany both nationally and internationally. Once again, I support less government restriction in theeconomy. It is interesting to see how the government wavers between government control in thismeasure as opposed to the First Home Owner Grant Act amendments. Consistency is clearly not itsspeciality or indeed an ability of this government.

We on this side of the House understand that the Queensland public has lost faith in thisgovernment. It sneakily went to the 2009 state election with no mention of its intention to sell off some ofQueensland’s best publicly owned assets. Then once re-elected it went on its way enacting its assetsales program in the hope that by the next election the anger in the community would have subsided.Almost one year on from that announcement Queenslanders have not forgotten the government’sgrossly deceitful revenue raising that went against all fundamental policies that the Labor Party holdsdear. I commend the bill to the House with the reservations that I have outlined.

Mr DOWLING (Redlands—LNP) (5.26 pm): I rise to make a brief contribution to the Revenue andOther Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 as introduced by the honourable the Treasurer. It is a bill whichamends 11 other bills. I will not be speaking to each of them, as most of the debate has been heard inthe House, but I will talk to a few of the key areas. On reading through the explanatory notes, somethingthat sent a message to me, and I believe will send a message to Labor’s heartland, is that clauses 82,83, 84, 90, 91 and 92 amend certain sections to facilitate the transfer of employees’ assets, instrumentsand liabilities from and to the state in connection with the declared projects. Those clauses amendcertain sections to facilitate the transfer of employees. They are by and large Labor members—Labor’srank and file. They are union members who have been sold out.

That small paragraph in the explanatory notes sums it all up. It is so well hidden in this documentthat it leapt out at me. It is saying that we are selling off our railway workers, our forestry workers, ourport workers and our motorways personnel as if they do not exist. Worse than that, within that onesimple paragraph it says that we are getting rid of the assets—selling them, privatising them, disposing


of them, removing them, transferring them. Whatever language is used, at the end of the day it is takingthe assets that have been bought and paid for by Queenslanders many, many times over and sellingthem back to them. It is nothing but a complete and utter sham.

The myths versus facts brochure that came out articulated that these five entities are minor—thatthey are small businesses that tipped in only $320 million profit last year. Last time I checked, profitmeant after the debt was serviced and all debtors were paid. To still have $320 million that thisgovernment is prepared to throw away is farcical. All the way through we have opposed the sale ofthese assets. Queenslanders will not forget that when they go to the polls. I am sure the Treasurerwould love to find $320 million out of thin air that he could invest somewhere. I would certainly lookforward to it being invested in Redlands.

The bill amends the Land Tax Act 1915. Only some 14 days ago in this House we discussed theValuation of Land and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. At that time I took a leap of faith and, duringmy speech on that legislation, I speculated that—What this legislation will do in my electorate is see a most significant increase in valuations, not a downward trend as has beenhinted at by the government. The Redland City Council area has not been valued for over five years. It would be a bravespeculator who would contemplate that the values may go down after five years without land valuations.

I went on to say that the impact from that would jeopardise jobs in retail, property developmentand the building trades. To put that in perspective, in the Redlands retail accounts for 17 per cent of allresidents’ jobs. That is over 5,500 jobs. During that speech I also mentioned the fact that under Laboreverything has been going up—electricity charges, water, registration, fuel prices—so why would landtax and land valuations be any different?

The land valuations are in. They started arriving in letterboxes today and, I suspect, yesterday.They prove my prediction. I can give the House some examples. Some angry landowners have takenthe time to write to me and the two other state members for the Redlands, the member for Capalaba andthe member for Cleveland. They too will have received this email and, as I was, they will be quiteshocked at the change in valuations. One example outlined in the email is of a corner strip shoppingcentre which was valued last year at $1.25 million which has now jumped to $3 million.

A government member interjected.Mr DOWLING: I take the interjection. The valuation that was set five years ago was the valuation

that was used last year, so it has jumped from last year’s valuation of $1.25 million to $3 million. I repeatthat this is significant because retail is such a big employer in my community. The Victoria PointShopping Centre has increased in value from $3.7 million last year to $8.4 million this year, based on afive-year-old valuation. The small medical practice jumped from $580,000 to $810,000. The adjoiningshopping centre jumped from $9.5 million to $20 million in land tax. I will read the salient points of thisemail, which states—These 2 increases alone increase our annual tax bill by over $100,000 ...

Again I have no issue in paying my fair share of tax however it makes it difficult to run a business when your costs rise sodramatically—we estimate that our rate and land tax liability will increase by nearly $500,000pa. Traditionally a rise in valuationwould be accompanied by a reduction in the taxation rate—however this will not be forthcoming. The land tax payable on behalf ofthe Redland Bay Shopping Centre ... calculates at the new valuation at $45,000pa. We receive a little short of 400k net rent i.e.the land tax is over 15% of our net rent.

Clearly that is not an encouragement for small business. It is not an encouragement for anyone whowould seek to invest in Queensland. If the mantra continues to be jobs, jobs, jobs, this is not the way togo about it.

I turn to the issue of selling off assets. Members on the other side ask where we stand on thingsand what our policy is, but quite clearly their policy is no longer to be the party that represents the workeror the union rank and file. No longer do they care about employees and no longer do they recognise thefact that Queenslanders already own those assets. Queenslanders paid for them and Queenslandersworked hard and provided for them, and now this government sees fit to steal from them and resell theassets as something that are somehow newly available and newly acquired. Clearly, the governmentcannot rob from Peter and sell to Paul and get away with it continuously. Its members will turn on it, andI look forward to that day.

Dr ROBINSON (Cleveland—LNP) (5.34 pm): I rise to address the government’s Revenue andOther Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. I note that the bill amends the following Queensland revenuestatutes: the Community Ambulance Cover Act 2003, the Duties Act 2001, the First Home Owner GrantAct 2000, the Land Tax Act 1915, the Payroll Tax Act 1971 and the Taxation Administration Act 2001.The bill also amends the GST and Related Matters Act 2000, the Infrastructure Investment (AssetRestructuring and Disposal) Act 2009, the State Financial Institutions and Metway Merger FacilitationAct 1996, the Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act 1990 and the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition(Queensland) Act 2003. I wish to commend the shadow Treasurer and member for Clayfield for his workin scrutinising this bill and for his amendments that seek to improve the bill.


During the recent debate on land valuation, I mentioned the blood thirst that this state governmenthas for taxes. I compared the government to the blood-sucking mutants of the Will Smith movie I amLegend and how this state government is draining the lifeblood out of Queensland. Like the landvaluation bill, this revenue bill needs to be understood in the light of the government’s failure to managethe state’s economy and its need to increase its revenue through increased taxation. The ‘tax-them-to-death’ policies of this Labor government have cost jobs, impacted on small and medium businessviability, and hurt mum and dad investors. Instead of being more prudent with expenditure, thisgovernment continues to look for every opportunity to feed its tax addiction.

As I have said before in this House, this government loves taxes. It looks for new and expandedrevenue streams via taxation. It loves high taxes, big taxes, new taxes, expanded taxes, lifting taxes,sneaky taxes, heavy levies, increased tolls, weird taxes like the ETS and creative transport taxes likecongestion taxes. The Premier has been found guilty of kicking Queenslanders when they are down; ofthat there is no doubt. We see hikes in electricity prices, car registration, boat registration, trailerregistration, a petrol tax and a hike in land tax, and that is particularly the case in the Redlands ascorrectly outlined by the member for Redlands. Recently we have even seen cases of retrospectivepayroll taxes on small businesses. I will comment more on that later.

I will concentrate my very brief comments on three aspects of the bill, not because there is not alot more to address in it but because I acknowledge the fine speeches of other members of the LNP whohave spoken before me. I recommend the shadow Treasurer’s speech as a more comprehensivetreatise of this bill. The three areas I will focus on are land tax, payroll tax and asset sales as addressedin this bill. Firstly with regard to land tax, during the debate on the land valuation bill the governmentperformed a last-second gold medal winning backflip. Succumbing to the great pressure applied byproperty industry groups, the community in general and the opposition, the government moderated itsdisastrous bill. I highlighted three cases in the Redlands where businesses were already hurting fromthe government’s policies and the pain was expected to increase. Since then, Redlands landownershave started to receive their new valuations and they are horrified. Some businesses are bracingthemselves for a 100 per cent increase in their land taxes, up to $100,000 and, in fact, more in one casealready reported accurately by the member for Redlands.

Secondly with regard to payroll tax, I agree with the statement made by the shadow Treasurerthat we need to look for ways to remove impediments to business and that reforming the payroll taxsystem is important. I welcome his approach. A few Brisbane small businesses recently contacted myoffice concerned about payroll tax issues. In two particular cases, small banking franchises have beenunfairly hit with a bill for retrospective payroll tax. In both cases, those small bank franchises havebetween three and four employees. They are small operations and should not be grouped with theirmother company for the purpose of payroll tax. In those cases this tax appears to be most unfair and ofsignificant enough value for them to have to reconsider their employment situation. They have onlythree to four employees and are small banks. I have asked the Treasurer if he would look at their casesas ungrouped. Under the current rules they would be defined as ungrouped, but for a number of yearsthey were defined as grouped. I have asked the Treasurer to look at that and ungroup them, as is mostappropriate. They are only very small banking franchises in Brisbane.

Thirdly in relation to assets sales, I join with other LNP MPs and continue to oppose the sale ofQueensland’s assets. The majority of Queenslanders do not support these asset sales and at thisparticular time. I commend the shadow Treasurer’s amendment in this regard.

Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (5.40 pm): In speaking to the Revenue and Other LegislationAmendment Bill, I did only have a couple of small areas to mention, but it just occurred to me afterlistening to the succession of sycophants for the Leader of the Opposition that perhaps my grandfatherwas right. As I grew up, my grandfather said to me, ‘Paul, there’s one born every minute and it takes 60years for them to die.’ I said to him, ‘Who’s that grandad?’ He said, ‘Stupid people.’ Then he went on totell me that stupidity was not capable of being fixed; only poor education was capable of being fixed andthat was by better education. I have to say that after listening to some of the people sitting in the LNPseats here today 60 years should be up for some of them.

This bill is about the protection of the revenue base. Most of the garbage that has been foisted onus today—those opposite have tried to sugar coat it—is that they would not support limited sales ofassets. Yet we hear from the member for Redlands that we do not care about workers and employees.What does he think the provisions that are included in this bill—incidentally that they are going tooppose—do? They protect employees’ rights. They protect employees’ rights in relation tosuperannuation or if they are transferred to another entity.

We have not heard from them here today about the sale of assets like Ergon and Energex,because their proposal is not just to sell the contestable parts of the retail arm; it is to sell the lot. Wehave not heard about QBuild or other government entities. But we heard this morning from the Ministerfor Transport about a proposal to add a congestion tax on vehicles. Lo and behold, it is a proposal of the


LNP—quite an old proposal. But they attribute that to the Labor Party, and I suppose we will read aboutthat tomorrow morning in the Courier-Mail. I got told the other day that I had not taken a swipe at themrecently, so they will probably have something to say about me, too.

Let me deal with a couple of things that have been put to this House and I would like to deal withthem specifically. The member for Gaven stood up here and said that we have had a GST for 12 years.I hope nobody in this House, particularly the LNP, takes any account of that. He must have taken hisshoes off and lost count on his fingers because the GST commenced from 1 July 2000. It has not evenbeen in for 10 years yet. I hope the numeracy of the others is better than his mathematics.

Mr Horan interjected. Mr HOOLIHAN: You are not in your seat anyway. The member for Toowoomba South, who

actually sits in front of me, Madam Deputy Speaker, did not even mention the second range crossingtoday. I am a bit worried. He has to work out how to pay for it.

The real interesting point was in response to an interjection by the Minister for Natural Resources.The member for Kawana was telling us that each Queenslander will pay $1.2 billion per year inrepayments and when the minister interjected, ‘You’re an idiot,’ he accepted the interjection! I think thatsays it all. Anyway, to get back to the bill—that incidentally was in relation to the assets sales.

There are many members on the Labor side of the House who are not particularly happy to haveto take that sort of action. It is a hard decision. It was a hard decision that was reached by many, manypeople and it will have to be carried out, unless there is some alternative available. But so far we haveheard of absolutely no alternative.

This bill is about the protection of revenue. State revenue is gained mostly through stamp duty,payroll tax and land tax, or taxes on land. I would commend to everyone in this House to stop and thinkabout the provisions in this bill that actually protect parts of that revenue. The member for Clayfield in hisspeech—which I found quite interesting; he was a little bit obscure about certain aspects—obviously haspaid some attention to the actual financial implications of this bill, such as the riders on insurancepolicies. People say, ‘I’m insured for $100,000,’ and that is what the premium is based on. But whatabout the extra premium that is paid when they say, ‘We will pay you $1 million if you get injured in anaccident.’ That gets brought under the act.

In relation to stamp duty, I was a practising lawyer when elected to this House and a registeredself-assessor and it always intrigued me that there was no way of stopping self-assessors from makingmistakes or helping themselves. At some time in my previous career, I acted as the receiver for asolicitor who had his office next door to the TAB. He had an awful lot of money that was paid into a trust.That money was stamp duty which actually managed to not find its way to the stamps office, and we hadto go and find that money—and that took quite some time. This bill gives the commissioner of stampduties, if he has any queries about moneys that a self-assessor is required to pay to the Treasury underthe Duties Act, the right to suspend their right to self-assessment. That relates mostly to solicitors butsome accountants have that right too.

I commend the totality of the bill to this House. Here is one thing that I want everyone to listen to.The member for Buderim, in his closing comments, said that we should take responsibility for ouractions. Everything that this Labor government has done has been with the view to taking responsibilityfor our actions—that responsibility is for the moneys of this state which are for the protection of thepeople who live in this state. Hopefully that will continue to be protected, particularly from those on theother side of the House in the LNP who halve their numeracy every time they put their shoes on. Icommend the bill to the House.

Hon. DM WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (5.47 pm): This bill has many different aspects. I wish tospeak to only one of those aspects and I wish to do that only in order to thank the honourable theTreasurer for his responsiveness in that he has acted in response to representation that I made someyears ago actually to his predecessor in the portfolio but which was obviously passed on to him. Back in2006 I wrote on behalf of a number of people who live in aged-care residencies in my electorate. Thosepeople are in a particular form of tenure. Land is capable of being divided infinitely, as every propertylaw student at every law school knows. In my electorate, and indeed elsewhere across the state, newforms of land tenure have been devised in order to maximise the benefit of the people who own thesekinds of establishments.

I wrote in 2006 that the arrangement with the proponents of the retirement resort is that peoplepay for the purchase of the residency, and the purchase price is approximately the amount which peoplewould expect to pay if they were going to be buying it freehold. In my constituent’s case the sum wasapproximately $300,000 back then. However, the title to the land is called a lease. These leases can bebought and sold on the open market. If my constituent decided to move interstate, for example, hewould be able to sell for approximately the amount that he bought it. He is in no way different from afreeholder in very many different respects. In other words, what the company is able to do is to provideits customers with a title that looks and behaves like a freehold title but does not enable their customersto get the government benefits that the freehold title would have enabled them to get.


One of the things this bill fixes up is that if somebody under Queensland law today wanted topurchase some land for a home then they would get the appropriate rebate on the stamp duty. If,however, what they purchased was a lease then under our statute law they would not be entitled to thestamp duty rebate. As a matter of practice, for some years the department has been implementing apolicy of rebating the stamp duty that they do in fact pay, but that is a generous courtesy which has beenextended as a result of the decisions of successive treasurers. What this legislation does is make it amatter of law.

It is very appropriate, I think, that people like my constituents who live in aged-care residenceswhere they have an agreement with a landlord that mimics a freehold should be entitled to the benefit ofhaving a freehold, or at least having the benefits which would flow from a freehold. This is one of them.There are others. Of course, my constituents who live in these kinds of circumstances will be looking forother steps in this direction, but I would like to thank the Treasurer. He has been particularly responsiveand particularly meticulous in relation to this matter. I commend the Treasurer, and I commend the bill tothe House.

Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer and Minister for Employment andEconomic Development) (5.53 pm), in reply: I thank all members for their contributions. I particularlyacknowledge the contributions, not only in this debate but also as being agents for change, of themembers for Murrumba and Yeerongpilly, both of whom have made contributions in this debate towardsaddressing issues that existed in the law, in advocating for the law to change for the benefit ofcommunities that they have represented in their electorates. The positive change that is brought aboutin the amendments that we see here today is representative democracy in action.

This is a bill that principally provides for a wide range of benefits. It legislates a series of benefitsthat have been for the most part administered in the past, which is a usual practice under theadministration of revenue law. It also protects the revenue base in many respects where those issuesthat arise in a complex society and a complex economy also require reinforcement through legislativeaction at a time that is required.

There was a question about the timing for this. It simply relates to the efficient passage of suchmatters that are usually stored up together so that there are not consecutive amendments. There is nodisbenefit from the operation of these administratively, principally when they are to the benefit of thetaxpayer. When there is a requisite wellhead or a requisite critical mass, then they are formed into onebill. That was one of the questions that the shadow Treasurer asked during his contribution.

In relation to payroll tax, which some people have commented upon, it is true that there is anational harmonisation going on here. But one thing that we are not harmonising is that the lowest rateof payroll tax in Queensland remains. This is about avoiding the prospect of double taxation. This wasnational reform. Interestingly, Western Australia’s Liberal government was one of the first to enact onthis front reform that we announced and that was advised publicly some time ago to clarify the operationof the payroll tax regime as part of the national effort to harmonise the operation of payroll tax to ensurethat compliance costs and compliance issues are reduced for businesses. This is part of that effort and,therefore, I think of broad benefit to the economy.

I acknowledge in particular by exception the contribution of a couple of members. We heard tripefrom the member for Gaven, who banged on about payroll tax but of course provided no commitment.There is a great tradition in this place of members opposite many times raising the ills and the evils ofevery single tax but always stopping short of providing the next part of the equation as to whether or notthey would amend it, change it, abolish it or do anything. They just like to be the reflectors of thecriticism and never the proposers of a solution. It is not for them the burden of proposing an alternative.It is not for them the burden of proposing positive alternatives. Far be it for them to ever put forward theirown policy. It is much better that they come in here and only ever decry the current circumstance in away that I think represents the worst of base politics.

In that regard I also acknowledge the lunacy advanced by the member for Burnett in hiscontribution. Before I leave the member for Gaven, he made some remarks about Suncorp whileindicating that he would be supporting the bill. I would refer him to the rather erudite explanation of theshadow Treasurer in that regard. He answered his own questions. I am sure the member for Gaven willbe more than edified by a review of the shadow Treasurer’s remarks.

The shadow Treasurer did raise some questions in relation to Suncorp. It is not a New SouthWales company. It has its registered offices here in Spring Hill. It does have a range of other businessesoperating around Australia and therefore has some other registrations in other places, but that reflectsthe nature of it being a national business. Its ABN is registered here in Queensland. I think his questionconcerned the consequence of not observing the requirements that are contained in the act and that willbe preserved in terms of one of the managing directors ordinarily resident. Ultimately, it is always anextraordinary experience to be resident in Queensland. There is no such thing as being ordinarilyresident in Queensland.

Mr Nicholls: Why would you want to be anywhere else?


Mr FRASER: I take the interjection from the shadow Treasurer. Ultimately, part 6 of the existinglegislation provides for injunctive relief should it ever arrive at that point. I do not suspect it would,however.

One of the beneficial amendments contained in this act relates to reform to the benefit of theproperty industry. The reform that is undertaken here to introduce top hatting is one that I know hasbeen particularly cheered for by the property industry. This is one where we utilise the capital gains reliefprovisions that exist to ensure that, where top hatting can be pursued by the property industry to moreefficiently structure its investments and therefore advance the interests of the property industry, this cannow take place in Queensland.

The member for Hinchinbrook raised some questions about the nature of those people whopresently relate to FPQ. I can assure him that what is occurring here is that existing contracts, whetherthey relate to customers, joint venture partners or other people in commercial arrangements, will all betransferred holus-bolus to the new entity. Therefore, the issue around compensation does not arise.Given that the rights of entities—indeed, as the rights of employees—are being transferred to the newentity, that question is not one that ultimately arises.

One of the more interesting parts of the debate related to the discussion on the first home ownergrant. This is a government that makes absolutely no bones about our decision and our leadershipposition. We led the way at a national level back in the 2008-09 budget during the last parliament inintroducing nation-leading reform for the abolition of stamp duty for homes in Queensland for first homebuyers up to $500,000.

We brought forward the abolition of mortgage duty. That was a saving of up to $10,000 for firsthome buyers in this state. It provided a leg up for people to get into the housing market. The first homeowner grant is a state program. It is a state funded program. The $7,000 has always been provided bythe state and continues, at this point, to be provided by the state, as it will into the future.

We took the policy decision that if someone were to purchase their first home, at that time, above$1 million we did not think they needed the leg up that we were seeking to provide everybody else, interms of the abolition of stamp duty, to get into the housing market. Just as there are progressive taxscales, just as there is reasonable means testing of a whole range of benefits at all different levels ofgovernment, that governments of both political persuasions have pursued through the modern history ofthis nation and others, we believed that this was a policy measure that should be targeted to those whoneed it most. Yes, we do believe that those folk who are buying their first home above $750,000 do notneed a helping hand, do not need a hand up from the people of Queensland to give them a first homeowner grant.

To put that in perspective, the shadow Treasurer asked the question about how many people thiswould affect, acknowledging that it is presently a $1 million limit. Last financial year 75 people claimedthe first home owner grant above $1 million. Last financial year there were 256 claims between$750,000 and $1 million. This is a policy decision. It was taken in the context of our wide-rangingreforms relating to the abolition of stamp duty and the bringing forward of the full abolition of mortgageduty for everybody. The number of first home owner grants under $750,000 was 34,134. So this doesrelate to a class which, in the last financial year, was represented by 256 applicants. Clearly, we believethat this is about making sure that the assistance is appropriately targeted.

It is important to emphasise that the median house price in Brisbane, the capital city, is $410,000.The average house price for first home owner applicants—those people who go through the first homeowner grant system—is $340,000. The limit that we are putting in place here is more than double theaverage price that first home owners pay. We believe it is an appropriate reflection of communitystandards.

It is a great insight into the members opposite that they sought to draw this into question. It givesus a unique perspective on their position. That perspective might be informed by the fact that shouldsomeone buy a first home at $750,000 on the standard 20 per cent deposit, which avoids mortgageinsurance, that would mean their repayments on a 30-year mortgage would total more than $7,000 intwo months. So the application of the $7,000 first home owner grant would in fact represent a mere twomonths of their repayments as they signed up for a 30-year mortgage.

I ultimately believe, and this government believes, that if a person’s first home is going to have thedouble lock-up garage with room for the two four-wheel drives, the billiard room, the spare room, therumpus room and everything else, they probably do not need a hand from the Queensland taxpayer. Wemake no apologies about targeting that assistance to those who need it most.

Ultimately, I got a feeling that we were not the real audience here today for the speech from theshadow Treasurer or those who followed him. I suspect what we saw during the debate today was infact the Tim supporter parade on show. I think what we saw from the shadow Treasurer was a gallanteffort, although a little bit astride the barbed wire, to try, once and for all, to declare that the light of theLiberal Party has not in fact been snuffed out in this state.


What we saw was a rather meek, handwringing contribution about why he does in fact supportprivatisation even though he has voted against it. What we saw was a dog whistle, an appeal to thebusiness community, an appeal to the natural base of the Liberal Party who are so outraged andperplexed by the unenlightened opposition of the opposition in this place. The audience today was not inhere; it was down the road at Waterfront Place. It is down the road to those who are the naturalsupporters of the Liberal Party. More to the point, it was to his colleagues in the party room; it was to theLiberal Party base who are cheering for someone to come and bring some sense of policy responsibilityto the vocation of the opposition in this parliament.

It was a stump speech the likes of which we usually see at preselection. It was an appeal to thebase. It was going back to the old ideals of why it should in fact be that if one just happened to be buyingtheir first home at $5 million they should not deserve a fair go from the taxpayer. What we saw was anappeal to the business community. What we saw was an appeal to the Liberal base from the shadowTreasurer. I encourage him at a million miles an hour to put his hand up, to put his hat in the ring andactually bring some policy responsibility to this debate.

These debates will be so much better for it when there is actually a bit of purchase in the debateand someone who is prepared to put something forward. Ultimately what we saw with this confectedanger around the idea that we should cap the first home owner grant for those poor souls whobuy million dollar properties as their first home, those poor souls who need a leg up from the othertaxpayers in this state was not a contribution of a shadow Treasurer but a contribution of a leadershipaspirant. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

Question put—That the bill be now read a second time.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.

Consideration in DetailClauses 1 to 79, as read, agreed to. Clause 80—Mr NICHOLLS (6.06 pm): I want to discuss clauses 80 and 81. I am happy to deal with them

together if that is acceptable to the chair and to the Treasurer. Clause 80 fundamentally deals with thedeclaration of the declared projects. Under the original legislation, a project as a declared project thenenlivened the powers for the government to dispose of that project. The five projects were listedpreviously.

What we are doing here is inserting a new declared project which is the Forestry PlantationsQueensland Office. The Forestry Plantations Queensland Office was an office that was set up by thegovernment some time ago in order to avoid the operation of the then federal industrial relations laws,the Work Choices legislation, because it was concerned that because FPQ would be a company theemployees would fall within the remit of the federal industrial legislation under the corporations power.All the employees of Forestry Plantations Queensland have been moved to the Forestry PlantationsQueensland Office which is a body set up by statute that does not fall under that legislation.

Those employees are, in effect, the employees of Forestry Plantations Queensland althoughlegally and statutorily they are covered by the Forestry Plantations Queensland Office. By incorporatingthe Forestry Plantations Queensland Office in there, effectively this parliament is saying we areincluding those employees as part of the transfer that we propose undertaking when we sell ForestryPlantations Queensland and all of the rights that go along with that, including the powers that theTreasurer has to transfer their superannuation and to give notice to employers to protect those rights.

We have opposed the sale of Forestry Plantations Queensland, the privatisation of ForestryPlantations Queensland. We continue to oppose the privatisation of Forestry Plantations Queenslandfor a variety of reasons that have been reiterated here a number of times and have been out there in thepast. We cannot in good conscience support clause 80. It goes to facilitating the privatisation. We areopposed to the privatisation.

Clause 81 adds additional entities to those that are subject to the operation of the InfrastructureInvestment (Asset Restructuring and Disposal) Act. It includes the Coordinator-General, the ForestryPlantations Queensland Office and the Urban Land Development Authority as declared entities overwhom the Treasurer will also have power in order to facilitate the divestiture of the assets—in fact, thesale of declared projects. Without clause 81 the divestiture that is being proposed by this legislationcould not occur.

Again, we do not support the sale of the assets as is being proposed. Clauses 80 and 81 facilitatethat. For the reasons that we have set out before, there has been no endorsement by the voting publicof Queensland in relation to the sale of the assets in neither that that has been included in clause 80 nor


the effect on those being included under clause 81. So there has been no buy-in by the voting public;they were told about it. In fact, it is quite the opposite. This is a rush sale in a market that is constrained.In particular in relation to the Queensland Rail sale we are concerned about the effect of transferring apublic monopoly into a private monopoly. For those reasons, we will not be supporting clauses 80 and81.

Mr FRASER: I thank the shadow Treasurer for his contribution. As the shadow Treasurer pointsout, FPQ does in fact presently exist of two entities: FPQ itself and FPQO, which was the employingoffice which, as the shadow Treasurer pointed out, was there to avoid the worst of the excesses of theWork Choices regime under the Howard government. This amendment ensures that the employeeswho are part of FPQ can be transferred with the business. That ensures that, by this amendment, theirrights, conditions and ability to continue in that employment to secure employment into the future underthe workforce transition code, with which we have agreed with the union movement on this front, will befacilitated. Clause 81, which I am happy to also deal with constructively together, relates to the fact thatthe Coordinator-General and the ULDA have some interactions with these entities in terms of contractsthat exist or otherwise. This merely clarifies that matter.

Division: Question put—That clause 80 stand part of the bill.AYES, 46—Attwood, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Dick, Farmer, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Hinchliffe, Jarratt, Johnstone, Jones, Kiernan,Kilburn, Lawlor, Male, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nolan, O’Brien, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves, Roberts, Robertson, Ryan,Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall,Wilson. Tellers: Keech, DarlingNOES, 36—Bates, Bleijie, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg,Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Powell, Pratt,Robinson, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Horan, Sorensen

Resolved in the affirmative.Clause 80, as read, agreed to.Clause 81—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! As no intervening debate has taken place, the

bells will be rung for one minute.Division: Question put—That clause 81 stand part of the bill.

AYES, 46—Attwood, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Dick, Farmer, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Hinchliffe, Jarratt, Johnstone, Jones, Kiernan,Kilburn, Lawlor, Male, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nolan, O’Brien, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves, Roberts, Robertson, Ryan,Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall,Wilson. Tellers: Keech, DarlingNOES, 36—Bates, Bleijie, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg,Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Powell, Pratt,Robinson, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Horan, Sorensen

Resolved in the affirmative.Clause 81, as read, agreed to.Clauses 82 to 86, as read, agreed to.Clause 87—Mr CRIPPS (6.21 pm): I note the minister’s answer to the question that I posed during the second

reading debate regarding clause 87. I thank the Treasurer for his response to the matter in his summing-up. Despite his efforts to reassure me, it is still a bit unclear in my mind as to the purpose of clause 87. Iwill take the opportunity to read the explanation for clause 87 from the explanatory notes, which state—Clause 87 inserts a new section 11A to deal with the change of status of declared entities as a result of their divestment underIIARDA. Where as a result of a declared project, a declared entity is no longer a GOC, port authority or owned by the Government,section 22 of IIARDA will apply to afford certain protections to the State and the declared entity. The practical effect is that section22 precludes triggering certain contractual rights in counterparties (eg a third party’s right to consent to a change of ownership of adeclared entity).

As I understand it, in the Treasurer’s explanation to my question asked during the second readingdebate he indicated that the divestment of Forestry Plantations Queensland by the governmentprovided for—holus-bolus I think his words were—the transfer of all of the interests of ForestryPlantations Queensland to the entity that the government eventually chooses to divest the business to.That is fair enough, but the implication I am trying to get across to the Treasurer is where, if I am alandowner and I have entered into a plantation forestry agreement with FPQ, I have done that in theknowledge that FPQ is the other partner in that contract. In the event that FPQ, which is what isoccurring in this situation, ups and leaves as a result of the government’s decision to divest itself of thatgovernment owned corporation, you have a situation where that landowner is now in a contract with adifferent entity. For that reason, it sounds like the practical effect of section 22—the legislative actionbeing taken by the government in this regard—is to preclude a triggering of certain contractual rights incounterparties, that being a third party’s right to a consent of change of ownership of a declared entity,


and that a person in such a contract, in this instance a landowner, would have an opportunity to give orwithhold their consent to the change of ownership of this declared entity. That is the issue that I amtrying to get to.

I understand the Treasurer’s explanation insofar as he insists that all of the interests of FPQ aretransferred to the new contract, but the landowner who has a contract with FPQ did not have anopportunity to make a decision about whether they wanted to enter into a contract with the entity that thegovernment divests FPQ to. Would the Treasurer be able to provide any further explanation as to thereason for clause 87 in that regard?

Mr FRASER: I thank the member for Hinchinbrook for his question. His assessment of theoperation of the clause in those circumstances is in fact correct. As I said earlier in my summing-up, thisis about ensuring that, across the program that we are undertaking, all entities, their interests, theirobligations and otherwise are transferred to the new entity. In the circumstance that the member forHinchinbrook puts forward in his discussion of this clause, that would be the effect of the operation—thatis, that the transfer is able to take place by virtue of the operation of this section.

Mr NICHOLLS: Just on that particular point then, it is often the case that the person entering intothe contract with the entity, whether it is Forestry Plantations Queensland, government owned orprivately owned, will often make a decision to enter into that contract based on the nature of the entity.So the government is often seen in a different light from a private listed trust, for example GreatSouthern Plantations, where you would have some different things. Is there any surety that is beinggiven to the person entering into that contract when the change occurs that they will have the samerights that they would have, knowing that the government is standing behind Forestry PlantationsQueensland as opposed to what would be the case with a private listed entity, for example?

Mr FRASER: To be clear about it, all the rights and obligations between the parties transfer. Ithink we are operating on the basis where we both are agreeing on that point. The transaction that willtake place will go to an entity that has to satisfy criteria other than price. One of those, for instance, isthe ability to remain an accredited provider of a forestry service, to be licensed under the relevantlicensing arrangements to ensure that there is a level of creditworthiness and otherwise to the entity. Soultimately, in practical effect, this is a question that I do not expect to arise in a substantive way to thosewho have third-party relations to FPQ because, ultimately, all of those obligations, both by and to FPQ,transfer to the new entity.

Mr CRIPPS: I want to ask the Treasurer a question on the issue in another way to perhaps try tobetter enunciate my concern. Why does the Treasurer need clause 87? If holus-bolus the interests ofFPQ in that contract with that landowner are transferred to the new entity that the government divestsFPQ to, why would there be a section in the original agreement that gave the landowner an opportunityto consent to or withhold consent to the change of ownership of a declared entity? Why would thatcontractual right exist in the first instance if the landowner in that contract need not have an opportunityto exercise that right when the ownership of FPQ is divested to another entity?

Why would it be in the original contract, which clause 87 is seeking to negate, because clause 87inserts a new section to negate the right of that landowner to give effect to that contractual right? This isthe issue I am trying to get an answer to. I wonder why clause 87 is necessary. If that landowner in acontract with FPQ had that right under the original contract, why ought that landowner not be given anopportunity to exercise that contractual right when the proposal goes forward for FPQ to be divested toanother entity?

Mr FRASER: I thank the member for Hinchinbrook. It has been the experience in the past, as Ithink has been discussed either in this parliament or during the estimates process, that in previoustransactions—the wind farm transaction in Western Australia, for instance—there were complicationsput forward by the contracting parties about unreasonably withholding consent to such arrangements.This merely provides the opportunity for the government in those circumstances to be able to progressthis transaction and provide certainty for the future owner.

Clause 87, as read, agreed to.Clause 88—Mr NICHOLLS (6.31 pm): Clause 88 in effect acts to remove some fairly longstanding provisions

that would otherwise have effect under the Property Law Act 1974, in particular in relation to covenantsnot to assign without obtaining consent. I guess this is because the nature of the deal has changed froma sale to a 99-year lease program. There are also some relief and forfeiture provisions in part 8 division3 which are longstanding as well and are, to an extent, replaced by the provisions of proposed sections15A and 15B on the way through. The question to the Treasurer is: why is it considered necessary toremove from the operation of this particular program clauses that would have effect in terms of everyother commercial lease that would be in place, including other long-term leases that might be in othercommercial arrangements, whether they be leases in shopping centres or whatever? Is it simplybecause it is transferring in effect the ownership of those assets all the way over and the governmentdoes not want to have the flavour of a commercial relationship that would normally be the case?

23 Mar 2010 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 997

Mr FRASER: The shadow Treasurer is right. This is an amendment that relates to the fact thatwe are proposing 99-year leases and therefore the removal of the normal operation of the Property LawAct is warranted given that the potential purchaser here of the business is one who will come to thattransaction from a position of having their own advice and having their own wits about them as acontracting entity. Therefore, we are seeking to provide for commercial certainty for the contractingentity. This is not in relation to any other aspect; it is one that relates to the third-party potentialpurchaser and is there to provide a requisite level of bankable and commercial certainty to them.

Clause 88, as read, agreed to.Clauses 89 to 118, as read, agreed to.

Third ReadingHon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer and Minister for Employment and

Economic Development) (6.32 pm): I move—That the bill be now read a third time.

Question put—That the bill be now read a third time.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.

Long TitleHon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer and Minister for Employment and

Economic Development) (6.33 pm): I move—That the long title of the bill be agreed to.

Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to.Motion agreed to.Sitting suspended from 6.34 pm to 7.35 pm.

NATURAL RESOURCES AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second ReadingResumed from 9 March (see p. 700), on motion of Mr Robertson—

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr SEENEY (Callide—LNP) (7.35 pm): I rise to lead the consideration of the Natural Resourcesand Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. I say at the outset that I think that this is something of a firstin this parliament in the years that I have been here. Traditionally, natural resources legislation isdebated in this parliament on a Thursday, usually when the government wants to get out of here. Naturalresources legislation and the consideration of natural resources legislation has always been very low onthis government’s list of priorities. For 10 years it has brought natural resources legislation into thisparliament on a Thursday afternoon and more often than not gagged the debate because membersopposite do not want to talk about natural resources legislation. It is not important to them. It is not apriority. If one looks at the list of legislation this government has brought into this parliament over theyears, it vindicates the belief that it is a very low priority for this government.

One has to ask oneself why this legislation is before the House today on a Tuesday, the first dayof a parliamentary sitting week—quite the opposite to what we have ever seen before with regard tonatural resources legislation. Why has it been brought on in such a rush? It is only just mature under theparliamentary rules. It was only introduced at the last sitting of the parliament and it has been brought onfor consideration at its first possible opportunity. It is a big piece of legislation—some 282 pages—andtoday, to demonstrate the extent to which the legislation has been rushed into this House, the ministerhas tabled in the parliament a further 51 amendments to the legislation before the House.

There has to be a reason why we are here on a Tuesday talking about natural resourceslegislation, which we have never done before, and why we are here considering a piece of naturalresources legislation at the earliest possible moment following its introduction into the House. Thereason is not hard to find. The legislation deals with a whole range of issues covering a whole range ofacts. The part of the bill and explanatory notes that indicates why we are here on a Tuesday—why thislegislation has to be rushed—is that part of the bill that deals with, in the words of the explanatorynotes—the Forestry Act 1959, its Regulations and certain other Acts (Forestry Act) to:• facilitate the restructure of the State’s interest in Forestry Plantations Queensland (FPQ) and to amend the Forestry Act

and other legislation to provide an appropriate regulatory framework for the future.

998 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 23 Mar 2010

What it should have said is ‘to provide an appropriate regulatory framework for the government tosell it off’, because that is what it is about. That is why this legislation is here in a rush and in a panic,because the government needs this legislation to complete its panicked sale of Queenslanders’ assets.This is another indication of the extent to which the government has mismanaged the Queenslandeconomy. This is another indication of the extent to which the government cannot get anything right.This is a Labor government that went broke in a boom. The biggest economic boom in Queensland’shistory saw this government run up $85 billion worth of debt and then go to an election six months earlyon the pretext that it somehow needed an early election to save the world. Once re-elected, it surprisedthe people of Queensland with an agenda to sell $15 billion worth of their assets—a sale of $15 billionworth of their assets that it did not think that it needed to tell the people of Queensland about when itwent to that election six months early. It is the sale of those assets that has engendered the introductionof this legislation into the House.

The necessity to complete the sale of those assets in indecent haste has meant that on aTuesday the Minister for Natural Resources is debating his legislation when, for the past 10 or 12 years,such legislation was always consigned to the lower end of the government’s priority. Now it is a prioritybecause there is a dollar in it. It is a priority because the government has seen an opportunity to gougea few dollars from the assets of the Queensland people. In this case, it is the assets that make upForestry Plantations Queensland. That is why the legislation is here and everybody needs to understandthat. We have said that we will oppose the government’s privatisation program because it is ill-conceived and it is being done in a panic to cover its own financial mismanagement. We have said thatwe will oppose the privatisation agenda at every step of the way. Because this legislation is part of thatprivatisation agenda, because this legislation is part of the enabling legislation that makes it possible forthe Queensland government to sell off $15 billion worth of Queenslanders’ assets—which it did not tellthe people of Queensland about and to which the people of Queensland have reacted angrily ever sincehearing about the agenda—obviously we will oppose this legislation in the House tonight or wheneverthe consideration of it is completed.

In its mean, tricky and deceitful way, the government has not had the integrity to come in herewith a piece of legislation that just deals with its program to sell off Queensland’s assets. It has come inhere with a piece of legislation that rolls together a whole lot of other natural resource issues that we donot oppose. Some of them are longstanding issues and it could be suggested the government shouldhave sorted them out quite some time ago had it had a competent minister and a competent departmentand had it placed any priority on natural resource legislation and the regulation and administration ofnatural resources in this state. But, of course, it has not done that. The only reason these other issuesappear in the legislation is to somehow disguise and confuse the main driver and incentive for thegovernment in bringing this legislation into the House tonight which, as I said, is to amend the ForestryAct to facilitate the restructure of the state’s interests in Forestry Plantations Queensland.

The other issues that the bill addresses are listed in the explanatory notes. It seeks to amend theLand Act 1994, the Survey and Mapping Infrastructure Act 2003 and the Water Act 2000 to introduce afeature based methodology to resolve uncertainty in the location of ambulatory boundaries adjoiningtidal and non-tidal waters and to clarify the lateral extent of the state’s management powers in non-tidalwatercourses in the Water Act. It seeks to amend the Land Act to extend, from 30 to 100 years, the termthat a trust lease or sublease can be granted over an operational deed of grant in trust. It seeks to clarifysome of the provisions relating to the implementation of the Delbessie Agreement that arose from theState Rural Leasehold Land Strategy.

The bill seeks to amend the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 and the Torres Strait IslanderCultural Heritage Act 2003 to amend the definition of the Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander native titleparty for an area and put beyond doubt the identity of the native title party. It seeks to make minorchanges to the endorsement of individuals and companies registered as surveyors by amending theSurveyors Act 2003. It seeks to amend the Land Title Act 1994 and the Land Act to clarify, update andimprove provisions for the keeping of the registers relating to land. It seeks to amend the Land Title Actand the Land Act to replace or complement existing advertisement publication and notice provisions. Itseeks to amend the infamous Vegetation Management Act 1999 in relation to its operation in nationalparks. It seeks to amend the Water Act to provide for the finalisation of the Lower Balonne provisions forthe Condamine and Balonne resource operations plan.

We do not oppose any of those things. In fact, we support many of them. I will go through themone at a time to indicate the opposition’s support where that support is deserved. However, the fact thatthey have been included in this legislation, which seeks to facilitate the flogging off of Queensland’sassets to try to save a failing government from the consequences of its own financial mismanagement,means that no doubt our opposition to this bill will be misrepresented. Let me make it very clear foranyone who wants to read this debate and understand the position that the opposition has been put in:we support all of those other provisions; we support all of the intents of the bill, except the intent tofacilitate the sale of Forestry Plantations Queensland. I would suggest that is its main intent becausethis legislation is being made a priority and is being rushed into the parliament, just as the sale of the


assets has been done in a hasty and misguided way. This legislation has also been done in a hasty andmisguided way, as evidenced by the 51 amendments the minister has sought to table in the parliamenttoday. I will deal with the issues one at a time.

The first issue relates to ambulatory property boundaries. The bill seeks to amend the Land Act tomake some changes to the whole concept of ambulatory property boundaries. Ambulatory propertyboundaries are so-called because they are boundaries that move with erosion and accretion. They areboundaries that are normally defined in relation to a body of water. I do not accept the implication in theminister’s very minimalist second reading speech that somehow or other this a minor amendment thatdoes not make fundamental changes and should not cause any concern to Queensland landholders.

An attempt has been made to portray these changes as a simple response to a single court case.I do not accept that that is the case. The legislation before the House should be of immediate concern toall landholders who have ambulatory property boundaries or riparian landholders who own lots thathave riparian rights to watercourses or a boundary that joins a tidal estuary or beachfront land. It shouldbe of concern to everybody who has an understanding of and values the concept of property rights.Twice I have introduced into this parliament bills seeking to protect the property rights ofQueenslanders. It is an issue that is of critical importance in the administration of land across the state.It is an issue that is of critical importance in ensuring that land is properly managed because withoutsecure property rights, without that security that landholders deserve that their property rights arebeyond dispute, land management becomes a farce.

Ambulatory property boundaries have been an issue for a long time. At different times there havebeen major problems with determining those property boundaries in relation to tidal estuaries whereoften the boundary was determined by the high tide mark or the spring tide level, which can lead to a lotof misunderstanding. There have been many attempts by landholders to interpret their boundarydifferently in relation to the old cadastral maps that they had. It was well established that thoseproperties had a boundary that related to the spring tide level; at least, that was the case before thecourt case that the minister mentioned in his second reading speech.

Also, with riparian boundaries or situations where a watercourse forms a boundary, there hasbeen a lot of confusion and a lot of different theories. A lot of those things have not been tested in courtbut they are ideas that are passionately held by landholders, especially in rural areas. There have beennumerous attempts to define what a watercourse actually is. We have debated that in this parliament ina number of pieces of legislation. There have been a number of different interpretations about where aproperty boundary is when a property has the watercourse as its boundary with another lot on the otherside. There have been suggestions that the property boundary is in the centre of the watercourse. Therehave been suggestions that the boundary should be drawn where the water ‘normally’ flows. Theconcept of the high bank has been used in different places to determine the property boundary. Thenthere have been other suggestions that it is somehow the low bank. All of those things are open tointerpretation and open to definition. None of them, I believe, have provided a satisfactory resolution tothe whole issue.

Let me deal with tidal boundaries first. Boundaries of a number of lots have been defined as thehigh tide level and that has become over the years the accepted position—that the high tide leveldefined the boundaries of lots. It was defined in the act as the ‘ordinary high-water mark at spring tides’.However, in the court case of Svendsen v State of Queensland, it was interpreted as meaning the ‘meanhigh-water springs’. This interpretation has shifted the accepted boundaries closer to the water andcaused conflict over accepted access issues. It is the reason that is given by the minister for theinclusion of these provisions relating to ambulatory property boundaries in the legislation. As I said, Ibelieve the provisions of the bill could go a lot further than what would have been necessary to respondsimply to that particular piece of litigation.

There has been a need to establish where private land ends and where public land begins. It hasbeen important for beach access. There have been issues of beachside property owners trying torestrict beach access—beachside property owners who believed that they had the right of exclusiveaccess to a particular beach because of the land title that they held. The definition of tidal boundariesand the resolution of those access issues have the potential to affect the value of properties in a veryreal way. It affects the value of beachfront homes and beachfront properties which have beenincreasingly valuable with the passage of time. It leads to all sorts of disputes not only about access butabout such things as fishing and swimming.

In relation to the riparian boundaries, the watercourse was defined as the boundary between landparcels in many cases. There has been a need to establish the rights and responsibilities in regard tothe watercourse and the application of the Water Act. The watercourse definition has always beendifficult for landholders in rural areas, so boundary definition and the establishment in law has beenequally difficult. There have always been issues about access rights along watercourses, especially withthe introduction of native title and the introduction of the Water Act 2000. There is the issue of grazingrights along watercourses. Given some of the definitions that have been adopted for watercourses, the


areas that are involved make that grazing rights issue very significant. There have been issues of theextraction rights that landholders have for the watercourses where they have a riparian boundary—extraction rights to things such as sand and gravel and timber in some cases.

This bill is a fundamental change in approach in identifying and locating those boundaries in law.It changes identification of the boundary to a physical feature on the ground, rather than the relationshipwith the body of water. There is a large number of different circumstances involved in establishing theseboundaries, and the conversion from the relationship with the body of water to a physical feature on theground I believe is very much open to interpretation. The bill establishes a new boundary in lawregardless of what may be depicted on any map and regardless of what words may be used in any grantor title. That is a concern, because it does not pay just heed to the rights of property owners. The tidalboundary location criteria, for example, are very broad. The bill states—... the tidal boundary must be on the landward side of any sandy beaches, foredunes, mangroves, sea grasses, salt grasses, saltmarshes ...

In another section it says—... the location of the tidal boundary must be consistent with the public interest.

The concept of being consistent with the public interest is totally undefined and very much left upto interpretation. The suggestion that the tidal boundary must be on the landward side of any sandybeach, foredunes, mangroves, seagrasses or salt grasses equally is open to interpretation, becausethere is no definition for foredunes. Such things as foredunes and salt grasses are very much open tointerpretation.

The most worrying of all is that the bill includes a power for the chief executive to declare wherethe boundary is. It allows the chief executive—and everybody knows that therein they can read ‘theminister of the day’—to declare where a boundary is. It specifically provides no compensation. In fact,quite an argument is advanced in the explanatory notes to justify this idea of not being liable forcompensation for any land lost through that declaration. It is conceded in the explanatory notes that it islikely that landholders will lose areas of land through those declarations that the minister makes.

It raises a very real concern about property rights. I am very cautious about any legislation whichseeks to impinge on a private owner’s property rights and specifically rules out compensation. I amdisturbed by the reference in the explanatory notes that the bill is somehow justified by a need that thegovernment has identified. There are a number of statements in the explanatory notes which give mecause for concern when the government seeks to justify this position of affecting the property rights ofindividual property owners and specifically ruling out compensation. One of them states—• The necessity to maintain public access and ownership of Queensland beaches and the otherwise prohibitive cost of

doing so should compensation be payable to all affected landholders;

That statement rules out compensation because of the cost. It is suggesting that, because thecompensation costs too much, individual landholders should bear that cost rather than the government.As a concept, I find that repugnant. I find it repugnant to suggest that if there is a cost involved in theimposition of these statutes and these regulations on individual property owners then they have to bearthat cost because the government considers it too much for it to bear. It is a fundamental principle that Ihave espoused in this parliament over a long period of time and it is a fundamental principle that I thinkshould be applied with respect to all landholders—that when a property right is required for the publicbenefit then the public should be prepared to properly compensate, to properly pay, the individualprivate property owner for that property right. That it can be ruled out because it might be too valuable isa repugnant concept.

It is also argued in the explanatory notes that the land that would be lost under these provisionswould be ‘of little or no consequence’ because ‘planning legislation and coastal protection legislationhave over the years reduced the scope for development’. If you understand and value the concept ofproperty rights then compensation is either justified or not. Either the property right exists or it does not.The two arguments that are advanced are, to my mind, indicative of the desperation that thegovernment has to try to rule out the concept of compensation, because the arguments arecontradictory.

One argument suggests that it costs too much, so therefore compensation is not possible. Theother argument suggests that the land has no real value because the rights have already been lost dueto the imposition of previous legislation. They are contradictory arguments, but both should be rejectedout of hand. If this legislation or any piece of legislation imposes upon the individual property rights oflandholders, then those landholders should be compensated if that imposition is done for the publicbenefit.

To determine whether or not compensation is warranted in the instance of this legislation, Ibelieve we need to look at the original intent of the land title. What rights were meant to be inherent in aland title when it was granted? What rights were meant to be inherent in land titles to blocks of land


which have riparian boundaries in relation to their riparian boundaries? And what rights were inherent inland titles granted for blocks which had beachfront access in relation to that beachfront access? Was itintended, for example, that private ownership of beaches and streams would be part of our propertysystem, as it is in many European systems? I do not believe it was intended that there be privateownership of streams in Queensland in the same way that some streams in England and in someEuropean countries are privately owned. I do not believe it was intended that beaches in Queenslandwere meant to be privately owned by the people who owned lots that bordered those beaches. I believeit is the case that the movement of the boundaries by whatever natural force has created an unintendedsituation. Most probably in most contentious situations the contention has arisen because of the naturalforces causing those boundaries to move.

In the case of tidal boundaries, the intent of our land law was clear. I believe that the land lawintended that there be access for the public to an area between the high and low tide. It was neverintended that that area would be privately owned or included in the lot that shared a boundary with thebeach. However, references in the definitions that I referred to earlier about foredunes and grassedareas are of much greater concern. Examples can easily be found along the coast where the publicaccess issue is still not solved by adopting the high/low tide definition.

This bill will establish the boundary to give public access to areas where public access is due andstate control to significant areas of land to ensure that public access, but it gives no recognition toproperty owners’ rights or consideration of the original intent of the title deed. When you read the bill,when you read the explanatory notes, when you read the minister’s very minimalistic second readingspeech, you see no recognition of the need to be cognisant of the rights of property owners. There is nopriority given to preserving, respecting or even recognising the rights of those property owners.

I believe that in some situations compensation would be appropriate. It at least needs to be aconsideration. If significant areas of land or significant rights are lost to ensure public access is availableor state control is undisputed in the case of watercourses, then fairness would dictate that compensationbe payable. The deciding principle should be whether or not the original intent of the grant of title isvaried.

As the bill currently stands, it depends on trust in the minister to use the powers it givesreasonably and fairly. No-one who has sat in this House over the last 10 years would have any faith thatthis government would use its powers in relation to natural resource management or land managementreasonably and fairly. No-one who has followed the debates that have gone on in this parliament overthe last 10 years and in the public arena would doubt for a moment that the government will misusethose powers. It will misuse those powers because it has no sense of fairness or reasonableness whenit comes to Queensland landowners. It is prepared to give away Queensland landholders’ land rights aselection pawns, as negotiating tokens in the battle to get green preferences at election time. We haveseen that with the Vegetation Management Act and we have seen it with the Wild Rivers Act, where inboth cases the government was prepared to abandon logic, common sense, reason and science simplyto get green preferences, simply to do a grubby little election deal which will forever stain the record ofdemocracy in this state because it was a low point of administration.

Mr ROBERTSON: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order.

Mr SEENEY: No wonder the minister is ashamed.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms O’Neill): Order! Member for Callide, there is a point of order.

Mr ROBERTSON: Madam Deputy Speaker, far from being ashamed, I remind the honourablemember that he supported the legislation.

Mr Hopper: That’s not a point of order. You should know better than that!

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I call the member for Callide.

Mr SEENEY: Madam Deputy Speaker, not only is it not a point of order; it is dishonest, it is a lie, itis wrong and the minister knows it is wrong.

Mr Robertson: I have tabled it in the Hansard.

Mr SEENEY: The minister knows that it is wrong.

Mr ROBERTSON: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. On previous occasions Ihave tabled the Hansard of the then Leader of the Opposition, Lawrence Springborg, who actuallysupported the legislation, and the vote in the Hansard supports that contention.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The member for Callide has thefloor.


Mr SEENEY: The minister can protest as much as he likes. The record of this government isclear. It is prepared to use land legislation and natural resource legislation as election-negotiatingtokens. It is prepared to negotiate away any resemblance of common sense, of reasonableness, offairness, of science based decision making just to get green preferences. It did it before the last election,and the people of Queensland know only too well that it will do it again if it once again feels threatened.The bill before the House unfortunately provides opportunities for that to happen in the future withregard to the rights of riparian landholders and landholders who own beachfront property. The people ofQueensland need to be aware of that, and they need to be very cautious about the way in which thislegislation will be used.

Watercourses have often been used to define the boundary between land parcels. Owners oneither side of the watercourse had riparian rights, and those rights extended to the right to stock anddomestic water, and in the early days before it was regulated to irrigation water. Since the regulation ofirrigation water in the provisions of the Water Act 2000, the riparian rights of landholders have beenlimited to stock and domestic water rights and to the grazing rights that I mentioned earlier.

Traditionally, in many cases those grazing rights were seen to extend to the centre line and it wasmanaged on a give-and-take arrangement along the watercourse in most instances, excepting in apermanent watercourse where the water formed a physical barrier to grazing stock. In most cases thosegrazing rights are exercised on a give-and-take basis so that landholders share the grazing rightsassociated with a watercourse and respect the stock and domestic water rights that have always beenrecognised as riparian rights.

There are also extractive rights for gravel, for sand and for timber—all of which have becomeregulated over time but were certainly not when original land titles were issued. There are also rights toconstruct banks or dams and small water storages to enable the exercising of those stock and domesticwater rights. All of those have been dealt with by neighbours on a negotiated basis in many differentsituations.

Since the Water Act 2000 and the increasing regulation of watercourses, the definition of awatercourse has become increasingly problematic. The bill before the House seeks once again to tinkerwith that definition. Definitions have revolved around the normal water flow and scour marks but seemsnow to have settled on a concept of bed and banks. I believe that the definition of a watercourse is stillgoing to be problematic. It is still going to be difficult, and it will undoubtedly give rise to contention in thefuture. The bill before the House seeks to address that, I think. It recognises that the definition that hasbeen adopted for a watercourse is not definitive and it does not solve the problem. Once again, itprovides that power of discretion to the minister.

The bill before the House will undoubtedly extend the operation of the provisions of the Water Actto a greater area of land than it has in the past. The explanatory notes try to justify this by arguing thatthere is no loss of private ownership of that land. It fails once again to completely recognise that the lossof ownership rights is equal to the loss of ownership.

Labor fundamentally does not understand property rights. The loss of rights is the loss ofownership. While it might technically still be private land, if the landowner has no rights because of theWater Act or the landowner has a diminished right, then the ownership of that land is either taken awayor diminished according to those circumstances. It is a fundamental concept that Labor fails torecognise again and again. It has failed to recognise it again in this bill.

The bill proposes to use a system of trigger points. Trigger point 1 is set to be the commencementof the legislation. Trigger point 2 is established when a new land survey is conducted for it to beregistered. Both trigger points provide that the relevant boundary at law will become the line of a naturalfeature even though prior to the enactment of this bill the boundary could have been located closer tothe water body that defined the original boundary or indeed within the water body if the location or extentof the water body had shifted over time.

The bill means that some lots will undoubtedly be made smaller in area than they were originallysurveyed. It establishes the boundary in law. However, it is the loss of the rights that is the true measureof the impact of this legislation. It is the loss of those property rights that is the measure of the impact ofthis legislation that this government has completely ignored, that the minister has completely ignored inhis second reading speech and that have been completely ignored in the explanatory notes thataccompany the legislation.

In the case of beachside property, it is the loss of a right to exclusive possession to a particulararea of land. In the case of watercourse boundaries, it is the loss of rights to extract resources such astimber or gravel, the loss of rights to construct water storages or the loss of any right that was previouslyconsidered to be available to a landholder because it was outside the watercourse.

In considering this question of ambulatory boundaries, the opposition has been faced with avexed decision. It has been an issue that has been around for a long time. It is an issue that has been aproblem. It is an issue that has, to some extent, been brought into focus by the court case that is


referred to in the minister’s second reading speech and in the explanatory notes. But the governmentresponse takes no concern of property rights. We are fundamentally concerned about property rights.There is undoubtedly a loss of rights for landholders. A loss of rights is equal to a loss of property.

As I indicated in my detailed consideration of this question, the intent of the original title has to bethe determining element. I believe that there is some argument for some compensation provisionswhere that original intent is breached. I believe there should have been compensation provisions in thislegislation. I believe that the powers that are granted to the minister to make these determinationsshould have been compensatable powers. If nothing else, it would provide a brake on the decisions ofan irresponsible minister. The landholders of Queensland know that it is quite possible to have anirresponsible minister administering this part of government legislation.

However, we will not oppose the provisions of this part of the legislation. We do not oppose thechanges that are made. We do that with caution. We do that almost with reluctance because thegranting of those determination powers to a minister without the corresponding commitment tocompensation is indeed a dangerous thing. This is an issue that needs to be resolved. It is an issue thathas needed to be resolved for some time. In the absence of any better resolution then we are preparedto accept that the resolution that is contained in the bill at least provides a solution but one that needs tobe used with caution, one that needs to be used very carefully by the government and the by theminister of the day.

I will move on to the proposed amendments to the Land Act that seek to deal with the DelbessieAgreement. This is an agreement that was signed in December 2007. It arose out of the RuralLeasehold Land Strategy. The Delbessie Agreement provides incentives for lease periods to beextended depending on a number of conditions that holders of those leases are able to meet.

It was the culmination of a long-running argument about the security of tenure for western grazingleases. It dealt with a number of fundamental concepts with regard to good land management and goodland administration. As I recall well, there was a view at the time within the Labor government thatsomehow these land leases were a bit like leasing a house in Brisbane or leasing a unit on the GoldCoast. Those sorts of comparisons were made by members in this House during the consideration ofthe question at the time. Nothing can be further from the truth.

The leases that were issued are land titles. Like all other land titles their worth is dependent upontheir security. Unless landholders have that security of title, unless they are confident about the long-term security of their land title, then all other matters relating to land management fall away asinsignificant. It is a fundamental in land management, it is a fundamental in land administration thatlandholders must have secure land title—secure land title to ensure that they have the incentive toinvest and manage for the long term.

I am pleased to see that the provisions in this bill seek to provide mechanisms to allow thoselease periods to be extended. They seek to allow those lease periods to be extended out to 50 and 75years. In the consideration in detail stage I may explore those conditions in greater detail. In terms of thefundamental concepts, I think the Labor government has come a long way.

There is still no recognition of the right of renewal. Unless those leases have a right of renewal forthe landholder then that concept of secure property title is not met. I believe, and I have argued over along period of time, that with the issue of these leases historically there was an accepted, if not stated,recognition that landholders had a right to expect those leases to be renewed. It is a question that stillhas to be addressed. Even with the Delbessie Agreement and even with the changes that have beenpreviously made to grazing leases and that are being made to special leases in this particularlegislation, there is no recognition of that need to address the question of the landholder’s right ofrenewal—the concept that that right of renewal now needs to be stated to ensure that there are thoseincentives for long-term proper management of those areas. I think that is something that needs to beaddressed. It is not addressed in this the bill. It is noticeable by its omission.

I turn now to the amendments that are proposed to make changes to the DOGIT subleases. Forthose members who are not familiar with the term, DOGITs are deeds of grant in trust. They are landtitles that are granted to groups of people. They had their origin in a desire by the previous conservativegovernment to give a title that was equal to freehold to Aboriginal communities. But they have sincebeen used for a wide range of other applications where land titles were needed to give title to land togroups of people rather than individuals. So deeds of grant in trust have been used for things such asshowgrounds in a number of towns, airports, caravan parks and recreation reserves. Things such asthat are now held by various groups of Queenslanders as deeds of grant in trust. They are distinguishedfrom the Aboriginal deeds of grant in trust by the use of the term ‘operational DOGITs’, and that is theterm that is used in the bill.

The amendments that are contained in the bill seek to amend the Land Act to allow subleases onthose DOGIT areas—on those areas that are held as deeds of grant in trust—to be granted toindividuals or separate titleholders for a period of a hundred years. It is a mechanism that is needed toallow private investment in particular areas. It is a mechanism that is welcome. It is a mechanism that


recognises the need for long-term, secure title to enable the investment to take place—investment thatis required to enable, for example, the establishment of a facility at an airport that is held by acommunity as a deed of grant in trust or a facility at a caravan park. In my electorate I have a caravanpark and a camping ground that has probably got $3 million or $4 million worth of assets on the area ofland. That area of land is held as a deed of grant in trust by the community with the council as a trustee.It is always an issue of concern for investors, for financiers, to provide a long-term, secure land title toenable that sort of investment to take place. The amendments that are proposed in this bill do just that.They are long overdue. I welcome their inclusion in the legislation.

The final part of the bill that I wish to talk about—before I get to the forestry provisions, ofcourse—relates to the Condamine and Balonne resource operations plan. The provisions in the bill seekto finalise the Condamine and Balonne resource operations plan by finalising the Lower Balonneprovisions. The member for Warrego will speak at length about this because it is an issue within hisarea. It was deferred for finalisation from December 2008 due to judicial review by the Supreme Court ina case that was known as the Munya Lake v the Department of Natural Resources and Water. It is awelcome finalisation to this issue because it allows landholders in the area covered by the Condamineand Balonne resource operations plan to partake in the water market—a water market that is currentlyoffering opportunities to landholders as the federal government moves to purchase water for theenvironment.

The federal minister, Penny Wong, has made some major water purchases in New South Walesjust down the watercourse from this area of the Condamine and Balonne resource operations plan. It iswelcome that Queensland landholders who hold those water allocations will now be able to participatein that market. It is a market that is a free market. It is a market that needs to be a free market. It is amarket that we have supported so long as it is a market conducted between willing buyers—obviouslythe federal government—and willing sellers. But no matter how willing a seller Queensland landholdershave been, they have been unable to participate in that water market until the finalisation of theCondamine and Balonne water resource operations plan. The bill before the House brings about thatfinalisation. It, too, could be argued that it is long overdue. It ensures that Queensland landholders canparticipate in that water market to the same extent that their colleagues across the border can.

Now I turn to the forestry provisions in the bill which are essentially the reason this bill is beforethe House in this most unusual way. There are obviously the conceptual issues about the sale ofQueensland assets. Nobody should try to misrepresent the opposition’s position. The Premier sought todo that this morning in this parliament simply because I asked a question about the government’sprivatisation agenda, and I have no doubt that members of the government will seek to do that in thefuture. But the opposition’s position has been made very clear: we do not support the panic sale ofQueenslanders’ assets to try to repair the damaged finances of an incompetent government. That is theposition.

It bears repeating: we do not support the panic sale of Queenslanders’ assets to raise revenue torepair the financial accounts of an incompetent government. That is what is being proposed by AnnaBligh and the Labor government of Queensland at the moment. That is what is being proposed and isbeing proposed in a sneaky, underhanded and dishonest way. It was proposed after the governmentwent to an election six months early to hide the damage that had been done to the state’s finances.They went to an election six months early to ensure that the people of Queensland did not becomeaware of the extent of the damage they had done to the state’s finances through all of those boomyears. Then since they have been re-elected they have asked the people of Queensland to accept thisagenda of privatisation to raise $15 billion to repair the financial damage caused by their ownincompetence. The provisions in this bill are part of that agenda.

The provisions in this bill are the enabling provisions for the sale of Forestry PlantationsQueensland. We do not support that. There is a whole range of things about the proposals contained inthis bill that are in themselves of concern and would not be supported. We do not support the wholesale. We do not support the agenda of the forced, panicked privatisation of these assets in any way. Iwill consider some of the issues that are also of concern in what is being proposed.

It is a major issue which will have long-term impacts on Queensland taxpayers through theownership of the state’s plantation and forestry interests as well as on community recreation and onneighbouring landholders, none of which the government seems to recognise. It is clear, as I indicatedat the beginning of this consideration, that the bill has been rushed into this parliament for the fire sale oftaxpayers’ assets. No greater evidence of that is required than the 51 amendments which have followedinto this House today.

The bill facilitates the restructure of the state’s interest in Forestry Plantations Queensland. It is amajor step in the sell-off of the plantations part of Queensland’s state forests. It is the first in the line-upof assets that the government is proposing to sell. It impacts upon 300,000 hectares of plantationforestry including a 100,000-hectare buffer area. It proposes a 99-year lease be granted to a licensee toown, manage and benefit from the trees on that land. That in itself is an issue—the fact that a 99-yearlease is being proposed. The growing of trees is obviously a long-term activity. It takes a long time for a


cycle to be completed, from the planting to the harvesting of trees. The fact that a 99-year lease hasbeen chosen as the title reinforces the points that I made earlier about the need for secure land titles toencourage investment. The fact that the government has proposed a 99-year lease will reduce the valueof the asset. It will significantly reduce the value of the asset. Had the government elected for some sortof title in perpetuity, the asset would have been worth much more to the people of Queensland.

It has marked similarities to what the government is doing with Queensland Rail. In this case, asin that case, the government’s position has been adopted because of its underlying socialist philosophy.The government has adopted a position that will guarantee that the people of Queensland will receiveless for the asset that it seeks to sell in a dishonest, sneaky way. The people of Queensland will receiveless because, in this case, the government cannot bring itself to give the licensee title in perpetuity. Thegovernment cannot recognise the worth of secure property titles. The government cannot understandthe necessity for secure property titles to encourage the type of investment that is necessary. Becauseof that socialist philosophy, the government has sought to settle on this 99-year lease.

It is the same socialist philosophy that prevents the government allowing the big, bad coalcompanies buying the railway in the case of QR. We have seen some remarkable examples in thisHouse of how the socialist philosophy runs away with people such as the Premier and the member forRockhampton, who get all hot and sweaty and talk about horrible tories and big companies and howtheir ownership of these assets would be somehow dastardly and has to be prevented at all costs. It isthe maintenance of that philosophy that is costing Queenslanders large amounts of money in this panicsale of assets that is being undertaken by the government.

There is another issue in relation to the sale of Forestry Plantations Queensland which was raisedearlier tonight in a debate on another piece of legislation, and that is how the sale impacts on the rightsof landholders who hold contracts with Forestry Plantations Queensland. In many instances theseplantations were established through contractual arrangements on private land. That regime was put inplace by the previous minister for primary industries, Henry Palaszczuk. There are large areas of suchtimber plantations in my electorate where the timber is being grown under contractual arrangementswith Forestry Plantations Queensland. But the government is proposing to sell those contracts as part ofthe licence that it is going to grant to a private equity company.

In any normal contractual situation, it is common for the consent of the second contractual partyto be required for the transfer of the contractual rights of the first contractual party. That is a commonrequirement that, for example, bodies corporate strike with body corporate managers. The bodycorporate has to approve the sale of a body corporate manager’s contract. Yet when it comes toQueensland landholders, that provision—that protection—is being specifically removed.

That particular provision should be particularly pertinent in this situation, because the landholdersin my electorate and across Queensland were prepared to enter into a contract with the government.They were prepared to enter into a contract with Henry Palaszczuk, when he was the minister, withForestry Plantations Queensland to grow timber on their land. Had those landholders been offered asimilar contract with a listed private entity, they may well have had other considerations. They very muchmay well have had other issues to consider. The fact that it was a contract with the government—thefact that it was a contract with Forestry Plantations Queensland with all of the expertise that theyconsidered that the forestry department had, with all of the security that they considered that a contractwith the government gave them—was a major determinant in the terms of that contract. Yet thegovernment is going to specifically remove the rights of those people to have any say. Although the landwill remain in the hands of the government, the contract will be part of the asset that is transferred to thelicensee, along with the trees.

A whole range of issues regarding the management of that land needs to be resolved and is notresolved by this legislation. All of the issues that are inherent in any good neighbour policy need to beidentified—and I am sure the member for Condamine, as the responsible shadow minister, will deal withthem in some detail. As a small example, the control of feral pigs will be of no concern to a company thatseeks to grow trees. Yet the control of feral pigs will be of great concern to the neighbouring landholderswho will have the misfortune to have these plantations as their neighbours. All of those landmanagement issues that we understand are not resolved or dealt with by this government, because thisgovernment is all about ensuring that it can squeeze the last dollar out of Forestry PlantationsQueensland. The government has chosen a model that will ensure that the people of Queensland willbe short-changed.

We will oppose that part of the legislation, because it contains that provision. We support therange of other provisions that are included in the bill, as I have outlined. But we will oppose the bill,because it contains those enabling provisions that will allow the government to progress its agenda ofselling the assets of the people of Queensland without properly consulting them in an attempt to repairthe finances of a government that has demonstrated itself to be incredibly incompetent. The bill beforethe House is not one that reflects credit on the minister or the government.

(Time expired)


Mr HOBBS (Warrego—LNP) (8.35 pm): I am pleased to rise to speak to the Natural Resourcesand Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. I commend the shadow minister’s summary of this bill. Ithought it was a very good summary that went into a lot of detail. The shadow minister put a lot ofthought into his contribution.

I think that this government should consider a lot of issues before this bill is passed, such as theimpact that it is likely to have on the citizens of this state. I want to talk particularly about part 21 of thebill which contains amendments to the Water Act 2000, including a special provision for the Condamineand Balonne resource operations plan. That river system is located in my electorate and it is a veryimportant part of Queensland’s water and irrigation area.

I welcome this legislation and this amendment. This resource operations plan is one of thelongest, most drawn-out plans in the history of water in this state. Unfortunately, if it had been completedsix months ago it would have saved many landowners from financial difficulty. But its formulation wenton and on and on. There was the opportunity for landholders to sell some of their water entitlements,particularly to the federal government. The federal government was offering incentives to buy water andthis resource operations plan would have provided an opportunity for quite a few landholders. I havereceived many phone calls from people who wanted to do that, but they could not because this resourceoperations plan had not been passed. I understand that a court case was going on. It was certainly myopinion that the government should have settled that matter out of court and had it resolved manymonths ago.

This resource operations plan makes a further four per cent decrease in allocation to irrigators.We do not know exactly how that four per cent decrease is applied. Perhaps the minister could explainhow that four per cent decrease will be applied. Is it across-the-board, or is it applied to certaincategories of licences? Exactly how will that reduction of four per cent apply to the Condamine andBalonne resource operations plan?

Under the act, this ROP can be amended by the chief executive, or the Governor in Council. Wecertainly hope that these powers are used with discretion—that due consideration is given to individualproperty rights and that a full understanding of the consequences of the changes will be understoodfully. In the past, those changes have not been understood. The Condamine and Balonne ROP wasapproved in December 2008. That is two years and three months ago. In fact, it was 10 to 12 years inthe making so it has been a long, long time.

This is just one page of legislation in this bill of 282 pages. It is worth hundreds of millions ofdollars to landholders’ water entitlements that have been held up for many, many years. One canimagine the impact of that on commerce. We talk about creating jobs, creating certainty, wanting toimprove our state and advance our nation, but we have had these hold-ups that have been going on andon. I will detail some of the reasons those hold-ups have occurred.

This resource operations plan is one of the few ROPs in this state based on genuine science.This Labor government took over in 1988, 12 years ago. It tried to cheat on the science and makepolitical decisions on landholders’ water entitlements. Labor wanted to use Labor science on the riversystem. Premier Beattie used all his persuasion skills—and he had some persuasion skills—to convinceQueenslanders that the Condamine-Balonne river system was degraded and must be saved,particularly the Lower Balonne. He even went to the extreme of advancing dodgy salinity maps to showthat the salt would erode our towns and even the railway line to St George.

Mr Seeney: Eat the railway line. Mr HOBBS: There is no railway line to St George. He wanted to divert the Balonne Minor River

into the Menindee Lakes. It is impossible to do that. He wanted to send water from North Queenslanddown the Thomson River near Longreach to the Murray-Darling.

Mr Seeney: The minister thought it was a great idea. He is hanging his head now. Mr HOBBS: That is right. These are the geniuses who were in charge. They did not realise that

the Thomson River runs into Lake Eyre. Getting it into the Murray-Darling Basin would require lifting thewater a thousand feet and pumping it 250 kilometres. As it turned out, it would have had to be pumpedinto the river near me. It would have been great to have the water going down the river past my place.

Mr Johnson: The Thomson is running uphill. Mr HOBBS: The Thomson is running uphill, as the member for Gregory says. These are the

people who were in charge and were trying to manipulate the system. Mr Seeney: Remember when we went looking for the salinity in Central Queensland? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Callide, come to order, please.Mr Hopper interjected.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Condamine.


Mr HOBBS: The member for Callide challenged the minister at the time, Minister Robertson, togo out and show him where the salinity was. They hired an aeroplane, flew around and burnt lots ofavgas but did not find any salinity.

Mr Seeney: A little patch as big as a table.

Mr HOBBS: I am sure the member for Condamine will expand on this in his contribution.Unfortunately, in relation to the Thomson, Beattie had the wrong catchment and the wrong river system.

The most important meeting in recent times was in Dirranbandi in about 2004. Then PremierBeattie was howled down by locals when he wanted to take over Cubbie Station and wanted to divertthe water into Menindee Lakes. The outcome of that meeting was that Professor Peter Cullen, aneminent water specialist at the time, was appointed to an independent panel to examine the science.The locals were saying to the government that it was wrong on the science and that it was using politicalscience, not real science. On that night, after much negotiation and a lot of argy-bargy, it was agreed toappoint Professor Cullen. When Professor Cullen looked at the numbers he said, ‘Oh my God, I thinkthey are right.’ He went back to the raw data and found that most of the information provided was notcorrect. Everything started to improve from there. The landowners were right. They lived on the systemand they understood it.

In fact, it was found that the Lower Balonne river system, which had a lot of irrigation on it, was inas good a condition as the Paroo River, where there was no irrigation, and the Warrego River, wherethere was very limited irrigation. There were the same sorts of invertebrates, fish and bugs that live inthe water. The water quality was good. The system had not been degraded. It was only the political spincoming from the government that was saying how bad it was.

The landholders wanted to ensure they had a fair system. A particular landholder wanted a simpletransfer of a water licence. This was a fairly basic process, but the government refused. The matter wentto court. In the end the government was found to have only used science that suited it and to havemisused data. It was found that the government scientists were not telling the truth. The governmentadmitted defeat and withdrew. The case was won by the landholder and natural justice prevailed. Sincethen the government has been a bit gun-shy and generally common sense has prevailed on theCondamine-Balonne.

I truly wonder how other water catchments have fared and whether they have been dudded orintimidated by this government. Some other catchments that did not obtain independent science havebeen unfairly treated. This parliament should know the cost, in monetary terms and in terms of personalsacrifice, of this battle to Queensland citizens. I commend the people of the towns and surroundingareas of St George and Dirranbandi who joined together and personally raised millions of dollars to fighta government that was supposed to be their friend and to help them and provide independent advice tomake things fair. It did not do that. They had to provide their own money to fund private science tochallenge the might of the government. A government should be able to be trusted and its citizenstreated fairly. That did not happen.

Many years of negotiations, funding and fighting had to occur for landowners of the LowerBalonne around Dirranbandi and St George to achieve a fair deal. It took 10 to 12 years when it shouldhave taken two, and it has taken a heavy toll on people’s lives. This bill brings closure to this drawn-out,sorry process. I genuinely hope that no other community in Queensland has to go through such tortureto achieve a simple fair go.

Mr HOPPER (Condamine—LNP) (8.48 pm): I listened with interest to the shadow minister. Hestated that many pieces of legislation for which he has shadow responsibility were introduced on aThursday night. The minister was always in hiding and people were going home. They wanted to shutdown parliament so they did not have to face the music. Yet today, we see this legislation debated in theHouse on a Tuesday. It is ironic. There is no doubt that this is absolutely rushed legislation to be part ofthe asset sell-off of Queensland. This is to sell Forestry Plantations Queensland. The government has tohave it in place before the sell-off can take place. That is what this legislation is all about.

I see the member for Mackay yawning on the other side of the House. I do not see his name onthe speaking list. The reason he is not on the speaking list is that he is in hiding. This has now gone toTreasury. Why do we not hear the primary industries minister speak about what Forestry PlantationsQueensland actually brought to the Queensland government? It is a money-making concern, yet it isbeing sold off. The government is selling the assets that produce money for Queensland. If ForestryPlantations Queensland is properly managed it is quite an asset, yet we are seeing it sold off.

This is part of the government’s privatisation program. It is about selling Queensland. The otherday I saw a car sticker that I thought was very good. The car sticker said, ‘Go see Queensland beforeBligh sells it’. What have we seen recently with Forestry Plantations Queensland, the Port of Brisbaneand Abbot Point? What is going to happen to our agricultural colleges? A major announcement iscoming up that they are going to sell college land in the Burdekin and in Dalby to put money into


consolidated revenue because of the $85 billion debt in Queensland. What is the interest on that debt?It is about $12 million every day that we wake up, which could pay for a new high school or hospital inevery country town in Queensland. Every day we could build a new high school with the interest paid onthe debt. This is to do with this bill because it is about the sell-off—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! No, it is not. You will return to the provisions of thebill now, please.

Mr HOPPER: The bill is about the sell-off of Forestry Plantations Queensland to raise revenue forthe state. Because of our unbelievable debt level, the government has to make sales. Therefore, it hasput into this bill provisions to enable it to sell Forestry Plantations Queensland. As I said, the interest thatwe pay on that debt could have paid for new hospitals or high schools. That debt has been racked up bygovernment members sitting opposite. Look at the backbenchers. Their heads are down in shame.

The bill talks about property boundaries. I will not go into that because the shadow ministercovered it very well. This bill does not state that our land should be properly managed. When we takeanything from someone, we must adequately compensate them. That is one thing that this governmenthas never done. With tree clearing and the tree police, we have seen the robbery of people’s assets.When you pay for something but have to give it up without compensation, that is theft.

Mr ROBERTSON: I rise to a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat, member for Condamine.Mr ROBERTSON: I think it is stretching the provisions of standing orders to refer to things that

are not in the bill as constituting a debate of what is in the bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment, member for Condamine. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You will withdraw that. It is unparliamentary. Mr Seeney: I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Condamine has the call. Mr HOPPER: This shows the absolute arrogance of the minister, because the legislation refers to

tree clearing and he does not even know it. He stood up, took a point of order and told me to speakabout what is in the bill, but he does not even know that it is in the bill. It amends the VegetationManagement Act. This minister, who raised a point of order against me, is supposed to be across thelegislation. We have seen this time and time again. Every bit of legislation that the member for Callidehas had to face has been brought in on a Thursday afternoon because this is a minister in hiding. Thislegislation is before the House tonight because it has to be rushed through so that the government cansell off Forestry Plantations Queensland.

I was talking about compensation. When you take away something that someone has adequatelypaid for but you do not compensate them for it, that is theft. The bill talks about many things. How willthese forestry plantations be managed when they are privatised but the government still owns the land?We know how the government has looked after its land in the past. We have dingoes, feral pigs and awhole host of other feral animals, there are no fire breaks and nothing has been put in place to managethe land. What mechanisms will be put in place to protect the land? Where will the fire controls be?

The bill refers to the Condamine and Balonne rivers. The member for Warrego covered that andthe member for Gregory may speak about it. When former Premier Peter Beattie went out toDirranbandi to look at Cubbie Station, I had never seen so much spin in all my born days. It was spin,spin, spin, spin. Other things that are being sold off include Queensland Rail and research stations inNorth Queensland. The member for Mackay is selling Forestry Plantations Queensland. The onlytropical dairy herd in Queensland was sold at the height of the dairy market when cows were worth$3,000 each. The government capitalised on that. We have asked a few questions on notice about thatissue and I eagerly await the answers to those questions. How much money was made on that sale andwhere will the revenue go? Now we hear that the agricultural colleges are going.

Forestry Plantations Queensland is being sold as a 99-year lease and trees are a long-terminvestment, so the structure is short-sighted. All current joint ventures and contracts will be transferredto the new entity and the land will remain in government hands. That is one of the problems that we seehere. What about the public’s right to access land when a private company owns what is on the land?That company has rights too. Let us say a mining company comes to explore your property. It puts downa drilling rig to drill for gas, coal or whatever. Tape is put up and people have no access to that area.Even though you own that land, you cannot go near it because of the arrangement that has been made.In this case, what access rights will people have? People are concerned about the government’scommitment to the continued right of access for the public in state forestry plantations. The government


has announced that it is committed to public access, but for how long? We can stand in parliament andtalk about it, but where is the actual commitment to ensuring that this happens? I have seen this before.When horse riders or others who use the state forests for recreation impact on the new owner’s use ofthe asset, will the government’s commitment continue? I do not think so. It cannot even remove feralpigs.

The new owners will have to abide by the good neighbour principles. What are the goodneighbour principles? They have been largely ignored by this government. The good neighbourprinciples have been pushed to the side. A lack of pest, weed and fire management have long beenissues for people who own land neighbouring government land, such as state forests or national parks. Inote the requirement to fence forestry land is expressly removed by this bill. The government is going toleave it up to the poor old bloke who lives next door to look after the land. That is exactly what willhappen.

I note that forestry officers will continue to exercise delegated power that will impact on users ofthe state forest. There are appeal and objection processes. Didn’t we see that with tree clearing and thetree police? Send the boys out, give them a bit of authority and bang! Who gets crucified? Who getshurt? It is the property owners, the neighbours and the people of Queensland. As Queenslanders weown those assets. Our rights are being taken away by this legislation, which is being rushed through theHouse tonight to allow the sell-off of our assets. I see you smiling, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Your comment is a reflection on the chair and you will withdraw.

Mr HOPPER: I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is about raising revenue for governmentbecause of the horrific debt that we are in and the horrific interest that every man, woman and child inQueensland will have to pay every day. Our grandchildren will be faced with this debt. It is beyond belief.It removes the restriction that a natural resource agreement is not an interest in land. It changes the lawso that the ownership of trees can create an interest in the land. That is what this bill does. It providessecurity for the landholders who are entering into agreements for the use of plantations in the voluntarycarbon market. We have a few questions that we would like the minister to answer. One of thosequestions is: how will this interest in land be compatible with the fact that forestry plantations are goingto be subject to a lease? They are going to be subject to a lease. If the lease is not renewed, will thisinterest in the land through the carbon market remain with the previous lessee or be transferred?

This legislation that has been brought into the House tonight is absolutely ludicrous. It is rushedlegislation. I would love for the member for Mackay, the Minister for Primary Industries, to speak to thisbill and give us his spin on it and tell us how he agrees with this sell-off, as he is selling off all of the restof the assets of Primary Industries in Queensland. God help Queensland!

Mr RYAN (Morayfield—ALP) (9.00 pm): I rise to contribute to the debate on the NaturalResources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. This bill amends a number of acts within thejurisdiction of the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade. From theoutset, I would like to commend the minister, his staff and the departmental officers on their respectivecontributions to this bill.

This bill is about providing certainty for the people of Queensland. This bill clarifies a number ofmatters for Queenslanders—for instance, this bill removes confusion about the location of ambulatoryboundaries, clarifies the lateral extent of the management powers of the states in non-tidal watercourseareas and reduces regulatory duplication under the Vegetation Management Act. This bill also providescertainty to water users in the Lower Balonne by finalising the Condamine and Balonne resourceoperations plan. This certainty is provided by a number of amendments to the Water Act. I would like tospend some time considering those particular amendments.

The Water Act establishes the framework for the sustainable allocation and management of thestate’s water resources principally through the preparation of water resource plans and resourceoperations plans. Water resource plans aim to provide secure water allocations and allow for futuresustainable development while ensuring environmental flows are considered to protect the health ofQueensland’s rivers. Resource operations plans are the day-to-day operational plans used toimplement water resource plans.

In 2008 the Water Act was amended to provide a process for a draft resource operations plan tobe finalised in stages. This allowed for the timely finalisation of part of a draft resource operations planwhere circumstances may have arisen that may otherwise delay the finalisation of the whole plan. TheLower Balonne provisions of the draft Condamine and Balonne resource operations plan were deferredfrom finalisation under these provisions in December 2008 to enable the completion of an outstandingjudicial review legal proceeding. This resulted in the ROP only covering the upper and middleCondamine catchments. Although the Supreme Court found in favour of the department and dismissedthe judicial review application, it is critical that the Lower Balonne provisions for the ROP be finalisedwithout delay.


While the Lower Balonne provisions remain unfinalised, the water users in the Lower Balonnearea continue to be at a disadvantage as compared to other water users in the catchment who have hadtheir water entitlements converted to tradeable water allocations. These water users have waitedpatiently for the Supreme Court to confirm that the department’s methodologies and decisions inpreparing the draft provisions for the Lower Balonne were robust. These water users are the only majorwater users in the Murray-Darling Basin who do not have secure water access entitlements and, whilethe Lower Balonne provisions remain unfinalised, they cannot participate in the Commonwealthgovernment’s water entitlement buyback program to achieve improved environmental outcomes for theMurray-Darling Basin.

In addition, the Murray-Darling Basin plan, being developed under the Commonwealth’s WaterAct 2007, is scheduled to be in place by June 2011, following an anticipated release of a draft in June2010, and is expected to set long-term average sustainable diversion limits on water that can be takenfrom surface and groundwater systems across the basin, including the Condamine and the Balonnecatchment. This bill amends the Water Act 2000 to provide for the much needed finalisation of the LowerBalonne provisions for the Condamine and Balonne ROP. Upon this bill receiving royal assent, theamendment will commence and subsequently the Condamine and Balonne ROP will be amended toinclude the Lower Balonne provisions.

Extensive consultations were taken over a period of several years during the preparation of thedraft Condamine and Balonne ROP and prior to finalising the ROP, giving interested partiesopportunities to provide input. This included public release of the notice of intention to prepare the draftROP and submissions on the draft ROP. This finalisation will provide certainty to water users and theenvironment and deliver the necessary creation of particular tradeable water entitlements in the area toprovide the flexibility for these entitlement holders to participate in the Commonwealth government’swater entitlement buyback program.

The conversion of particular existing entitlements to water allocations and the Lower Balonneprovisions will commence on the day the ROP is made. As mentioned earlier, this is the day that theproposed legislative amendment, if passed, receives royal assent. Once finalised, the ROP will definewater allocations, trading and operating rules and water monitoring. The plan will also enhanceprotection for the environment by keeping more water in the river during significant flows and willprovide for the health of rivers, flood plains and wetlands, including the internationally recognised lakeareas in the lower part of the system.

The finalised ROP will provide rules that facilitate both temporary—seasonal assignments—andpermanent water trading. Incidentally, the current flows into the Lower Balonne system, which runs intothe lakes area and the upper Darling river system, are the highest on record, with more than 250gigalitres per day flowing through St George, which is at the upstream end. I would like to confirm thatthe finalised Lower Balonne provisions will not have any retrospective effect on the take of water thathas already occurred during the current flow event in the Lower Balonne prior to the day of the ROPcommencement. The ROP rules will apply to flows from the day of commencement of the finalised ROP.The majority of unsupplemented water entitlements at the commencement of the ROP will be under aninstantaneous water-sharing rule. This is a key feature of the finalised Condamine and Balonne waterresource plan.

I would like to conclude by restating that the water users of the Lower Balonne area have waitedlong enough for the finalisation of the ROP that will deliver the conversion of particular entitlements totradeable allocations. The finalised ROP delivers to these water users and the Lower Balonnecommunity access to the security and flexibility already provided to the other catchments within theCondamine and Balonne area. This is a good bill which provides certainty and clarity to Queenslandersand it is worthy of the support of all members of this House. I have no hesitation in commending the billto the House.

Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (9.08 pm): In dealing with the Natural Resources and OtherLegislation Amendment Bill, I would like to thank the minister, and his advisers particularly, for bringingthis bill forward. It clears up one of the greyest areas in relation to boundaries in Queensland, and that isthe ambulatory boundaries. We heard much of ambulatory boundaries from the member for Callide. Butit is quite an amount of legislation. In fact, I thought it was quite instructive to read the explanatory noteswhere it mentions the case of Svendsen v State of Queensland & Anor, which was a decision on aboundary which is at the southern end of my electorate. It leads to Svendsens Beach, where we have aboat ramp on Cawarral Creek.

It is noted in the explanatory notes that 234 lots along the Queensland coast and rivers wereresurveyed after that case of Svendsen, but the biggest difficulty has been with erosion and accretion ofland and the resurveying of land. In some instances—and in a number of instances even in my ownelectorate—people have resurveyed land to include accretions on beachfront land and in actual facthave extended their ownership to land along the beach. I do not believe that anyone in Queenslandwould accept that that is a valid operation of any law. The provisions of this bill in relation to thoseboundaries will clear up much of that grey area.


What it does, particularly for tidal boundaries, is identify a feature on the current survey plan thatwill be the same feature that is used to identify that boundary. It will not be, as is currently the case,according to the individual surveyor as to what feature is actually used. There are other provisions fornon-tidal watercourse boundaries. I think the majority of people who do not have any knowledge of landlaw would find some difficulty in understanding why this is necessary, but for those people who do havesome knowledge of land law it is necessary. It has been necessary for a long period of time, and this billwill allow those matters to be addressed.

In relation to the other matters, there has been much ado about nothing in relation to certain otherprovisions, particularly in relation to the Forestry Act. I would not presume to repeat some of the mattersthat I mentioned this afternoon, but I think some of the arguments that have been put forward bear outwhat I said in a previous debate. I believe this bill gives Queenslanders certainty. It gives Queenslandersknowledge of how the law applies to them, and I commend the bill to the House.

Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—LNP) (9.12 pm): In speaking to the Natural Resources and OtherLegislation Amendment Bill 2010, I think the House has heard the direction that the opposition will betaking on this legislation. There are a few aspects of it that I want to canvass. I think this is a verycomplex piece of legislation. The most important factor with any land title is the security of the lease inquestion. We have seen many times from this government amendments to legislation. We have seenthe violation, I believe, of the sanctity of what freehold legislation is all about. We have seen that happenin this House as a result of some of the policies of this government.

When we talk about leasehold legislation, I represent a very large tract of western Queenslandwhere there is a lot of leasehold land. Those leases are very important to those landholders in question.In dry, arid, western areas it is very important that people have security over those leases so they canplan for the long term, as they get only one or two good seasons in 10 or 15. Thank the Lord we areenjoying a very good one at the moment not only in the far west but also in the vast majority of our greatstate, and I hope it continues for many years to come.

The real issue here is the duty of care. If we talk about the duty of care with leases, I believe theduty of care is a given. When we talk about looking after land, whether it is freehold or leasehold, it isvery important that the lessor is able to get on with the business of productivity that is derived from thatland—whether it is growing grain, whether it is the production of livestock or whether it is the productionof timber. The one real fact is the management strategies that are applicable. We talk about looking afterthe land and eliminating foreign flora and fauna such as feral animals and noxious weeds and plantsthat are a hindrance to these properties, but the government has to get its own backyard in order inrelation to national parks.

National parks are a very contentious area, I believe, in the management strategies ofQueensland. When we see good operations downstream from national parks where they are trying tocontrol noxious plants—whether it be parthenium weed, rubber vine or any of those awful plants thatdestroy the fabric of our rural lands—I think the government has to start being fair dinkum aboutaddressing this issue.

The other day I drove between Clermont and Emerald. When people look at those magnificentpastures they are probably thinking, ‘God, there is a good crop here,’ but I saw parthenium weed thatwas that high—as high as it will grow. It will grow a bit higher yet. It will get up to around six feet. A lot ofpeople would think this is a good crop and think these blokes are doing very well, but it is rendering thatbeautiful farming land absolutely useless. If you rub on it you will get an itch for weeks. I do not say thislightly, but some people are very vulnerable when it comes to parthenium, lantana and those types ofplants.

Mr Malone: Rat’s tail.

Mr JOHNSON: I take the interjection from the honourable member for Mirani. I know that timeand time again the Minister for Primary Industries talks about issues of biosecurity. Now that we haveseen a winding back in the operations of the great department of primary industries, biosecurity issomething that I think the government needs to do some more homework on. I know that the ministerwho is responsible for national parks is not in the House, but I believe this area will work in conjunctionwith this legislation through the department of natural resources.

I think that management strategies which grow a cause between the lessees and Indigenouspeople are a good purpose of this legislation. I agree with it. There is one aspect that we are revisiting insome of these cultural heritage areas. I heard the shadow minister comment tonight on the extractionagreements between cultural heritage and Indigenous people. It is a very important function for thosepeople to be able to operate the leases that they have. When we talk about cultural heritage, it definessome very technical things in relation to taking gravel, sand or water. It is important that no furtherimpediments are put in the way of these people so that they can progress their cause. I think there is


enough hindrance there now. The real issue, as I see it, is the importance if there are amendments fromtime to time to legislation like this of not having a further shutdown of the activities that they are able touphold.

I would like to touch on section 61, which will be amended to allow for the terms of trustee leasesand trustee subleases over operational DOGITs to be for a maximum term of up to 100 years. This is agood aspect. It is an aspect which, again, comes back to natural management issues. It lets people planfor the long term. It lets them get on with whatever their operations might be. This is absolutelyparamount when we are encouraging people to be productive with their land and making certain thatthey can get on with their business. They can have a long-term business plan, and this is an importantfunction.

Another area I want to touch on is the issue of non-tidal watercourses. The Water Act is a verycontentious act. There is no doubt about that. We have seen a lot of argument, a lot ofmisunderstanding, a lot of misquotes and a lot of innuendo in relation to water. When you live in the partof the world where I live, in western Queensland, those watercourses are very sacred.

I put on the record again here tonight that using the rivers in the far west of this state for irrigationpurposes is an absolute no-no because it is a natural environment. Members can call me aconservationist, a greenie or whatever, but when it comes to those western rivers they are notnegotiable for the purpose of irrigation. We have a pristine environment out there. We will see the flowthrough from the recent flooding in the Thomson, Barcoo, the Cooper system, the Diamantina andGeorgina system down to Lake Eyre and into the Goongee Lakes before it gets further into SouthAustralia and into the Strezlecki. The important thing to remember is that this environment is going tothrive again.

Mr Cripps: It is just not appropriate.

Mr JOHNSON: Of course it is not appropriate. I take the interjection from the honourable memberfor Hinchinbrook. I, along with people on the government side and on this side, vehemently opposed theprospect of people wanting to grow cotton on the Cooper at Windorah. What a tragedy that would havebeen. We can take all the water we like off the back of big floods but, at the end of the day, that water isgoing to create life somewhere else—whether it is a rare type of marine species that lives in that area orsome sort of plant that might see water once in 20 years. This is what it is all about. This is what wehave to protect.

I know that the government in its wisdom before the last election created the wild rivers system totake in the Georgina and Diamantina system and the Cooper Creek system. The important thing toremember though is that those people who run pastoral operations in that country are very goodmanagers. If the job is not right they destock. If the job is right they stock responsibly. The managementstrategies should be about protecting the environment.

The same can be said in relation to the Indigenous people who have access to lands whether inthe west of the state, the Far North of the state or wherever. Importantly, we need to allow ourIndigenous brothers and sisters to be able to move with purpose in those areas, and I will mention agreat little project that is underway in Hope Vale. There are a thousand hectares of land where they cangrow their own crops like bananas. They are being productive. It is all about enhancing the opportunityfor these people to move forward, to progress the cause, to show their worth and the value of theircommunities and operations and not be hindered.

I say to the minister today—he is not in the House at the moment—that we have to makeabsolutely certain with these pieces of legislation that when we talk about protection we also talk aboutenhancement. That enhancement opportunity is something that I believe is sacred to the ongoingviability and longevity of these areas. At the end of the day, these people have been running theseplaces for hundreds of years. They operate in the same environment that we operate in now. I think theyare good managers and know the issues.

I now want to talk about the restructure of the Forestry Act 1959, and I would like the minister tocomment on this. Page 20 of the explanatory notes states—

Whether legislation has sufficient regard to rights and liberties of individuals by having sufficient regard to Aboriginal tradition andIsland custom ...

The grant of a plantation licence in respect of the SPF may have native title implications. Advice from Crown Law was obtained inrelation to this issue. The Bill does not extinguish native title rights. Further, the grant of a plantation licence under the proposedprovisions is the grant of a non-exclusive licence and does not extinguish native title rights. Native title holders remain entitled toseek compensation under the Native Title (Queensland) Act 1993 and the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). Thus, it is submitted that theBill has sufficient regard to Aboriginal tradition and Island custom.


Again we see native title rear its head. I would like the minister to clarify that there is not acomplexity involved here that is going to cause angst or heartache to someone down the track. Whilstwe trust the great majority of people in the relevant authorities to draw up legislation, there is certainlysome small print from time to time that creates a great deal of angst and uncertainty. We have to makecertain that these issues are clarified.

The other issue that I want to touch on quickly is non-tidal watercourses. Non-tidal watercoursesin rural and regional Queensland where boundaries are determined can change from time to time. I saywith some sadness that we witnessed floods in Charleville recently. The council has gone to great painsand great lengths to try to prevent the flooding of that town. This flood has had a disastrous effect on thetown. There were homes flooded this time that have not been flooded before. I feel for the council. I feelfor my very good friend the Mayor of Murweh Shire Council, Councillor Mark O’Brien. These people doan excellent job in executing their duties and in terms of what they are trying to achieve. I hope that thecurrent government and the Murweh Shire Council and those other towns that are subject to this type offlooding can find a cure for this. Maybe it will cost a lot of money to work this out. It is all very well to playthe blame game but, at the end of the day, common sense should prevail. As the late Harvey Firestone,the man who invented the inner pneumatic tube, said, ‘You don’t fix a problem by throwing money at it;you have to throw brains and science at it first.’ That is right.

All floods are different. These boundaries—whether it is on a watercourse or river—can changefrom time to time. When we determine outcomes such as this we have to be responsible in the way wego about our business. As the shadow minister said, when in doubt we should throw the legislation outand not support it. We have these uncertainties. That is exactly where I stand with this legislation.

Mr POWELL (Glass House—LNP) (9.27 pm): I, too, rise to speak briefly in the debate on theNatural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. As my good colleague the member forGregory just mentioned, the LNP is opposing this bill, and I am pleased about that. For the second timetoday we are seeing legislation being rushed through this House to facilitate the sale of ForestryPlantations Queensland.

Government members interjected.

Mr POWELL: I will get to the rush in a minute; just give me a moment. I have put on the recordquite considerably my opposition to the sale of Forestry Plantations Queensland and particularly myconcern regarding the conditions that are going to be imposed on the workers of that organisation, and Iwill talk about that later.

I would like to briefly begin by touching on the amendments to the Water Act. These changes arecertainly welcome. I have had quite a few constituents over the 12 months that I have been in this roleraise their concerns about the varying definitions of watercourses. In my electorate it is less to do withtidal and more to do with non-tidal watercourses. The explanatory notes go into some detail about this.There is quite a level of disagreement among the definitions. It is good to see that this will clarify exactlywhat is within a property and what is not within a property. It moves away from natural flow which isexcellent. It gives some certainty to the property owners, but it also gives some certainty to thelandholders’ riparian rights. I acknowledge that the minister stated in his second reading speech—

For land with a non-tidal watercourse boundary, a change to a boundary on resurvey will not diminish a landholder’s riparian rightsin any way. Landowners adjoining a watercourse will still be able to take water for stock and domestic purposes, exercise the rightof access and bring action against trespassers.

I think this part of the bill is actually a very welcome part. It does give that clarity around definitionthat most landholders are seeking while still acknowledging their riparian rights and their access to thatriparian area.

I would also like to briefly echo the concerns of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee with regardto amendments to the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 and the Torres Strait Islander CulturalHeritage Act 2003. I note that the explanatory notes suggest this is to amend the definition of theAboriginal or Torres Strait Islander native title party for an area to put beyond doubt the identity of thenative title party for cultural and heritage purposes in the situation where there are two or morepreviously registered claimants for an area.

I would touch on the concerns that the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee raised in its LegislationAlert around the fact that this may not have respect to Aboriginal tradition and island custom. When Ireferred earlier to the bill being rushed through, one of my principal concerns is that the committee hasasked the minister to address the fact that the legislation may not give consideration to Aboriginaltradition or island custom. We as a committee would have received a response from the minister onthose questions. We are clearly not going to be given the opportunity to do so. It would be appreciated ifin his summing-up the minister could make some effort to address the concerns raised by the Scrutinyof Legislation Committee, particularly on pages 11 and 12 of Legislation Alert No. 4 of 2010.


Finally, let me return very briefly, as I have already spoken once on this today, to my concernsaround the changes to the Forestry Act 1959, its regulations and certain other acts. The changes arequite extensive. Some would say they are good in the sense that they will ensure there is continuedaccess to forestry plantation land once the sale goes through. There is certainty for apiarists and otherrecreational users of that land. Again the question is: why are we rushing this through? We know thatthe sale is going through and that is why we are rushing it through.

I would like to refer briefly to the comments made by the member for Yeerongpilly in relation to myspeech earlier today. He said that if Forestry Plantations Queensland workers have concerns I shouldbe bringing them to him or the minister. Let me say that if the union representing those ForestryPlantations Queensland workers is not getting the outcomes it is expecting from its meetings with theminister, with the parliamentary secretary or with anyone else involved in this then I am seriouslyconcerned that I would be wasting the time of the workers in my electorate by bringing them to see theparliamentary secretary.

Mr Finn: More effective.

Mr POWELL: I will certainly endeavour to take the member for Yeerongpilly up on his request tobring them to him to have their concerns raised. They are concerns around the conditions ofemployment that they will have following the sale of Forestry Plantations Queensland, particularly theissue that they may be asked or forced to relocate their place of work. Obviously I have workshops inBeerburrum and also nurseries around Glass House Mountains. If they are going to be shut down andstaff are expected to move to Toolara to the east of Gympie, that is going to have seriously detrimentalimpacts on those workers and their families.

Mr Finn: It’s been rumoured for 10 years.

Mr POWELL: Here is an opportunity to dismiss the rumour once and for all and ensure that thoseworkers have that certainty about where their workplace will be. I hope this sale is not an excuse to shutdown those facilities in Beerburrum or Glass House Mountains and shift those staff away from that area,taking their families with them. With those few comments, I would like to confirm my support for themember for Callide and his comments. As I said, I am pleased that the LNP will be opposing this bill.

Mr MALONE (Mirani—LNP) (9.33 pm): It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on the NaturalResources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. I will speak only briefly on the matter because Ibelieve that the shadow minister has covered the technical issues very well indeed. Our positionobviously is that we will be opposing this legislation.

From my perspective as a landholder and a person who has been in the industry for a longperiod, the sale of Forestry Plantations Queensland and the facilitation of this legislation to allow that tohappen is a real concern to me. Forestry plantations are, I believe, a critical asset and should beretained in government ownership at all costs. From my perspective, they are one of the key assets ofthe Queensland government. Quite frankly, I cannot really understand why this government would beselling such a significant asset that has huge opportunities for employment and the development of agreen industry for Queensland. To allow private investors to come in and gain the benefit of generationsof timber workers who have built up this forestry asset is beyond belief. The previous speaker indicatedthe real concerns of people who work in the forestry industry about their ability to retain employment andnot be impacted upon negatively by this sale.

Of course there are many other issues to be concerned about in relation to forestry such as theopportunity for recreational users to maintain their use of the forestry plantations. That is quitesignificant. I am wondering if the private ownership of those forestry plantations will still enablerecreational users to participate in their chosen sport in the forest. As I said, the legislation facilitatesthat sale. For that reason alone I am totally opposed to the passage of this legislation through the Housetonight.

I turn now to other issues that have been raised in the debate on the bill tonight. In terms ofleasehold land, again as a landholder I am desperately concerned about the way in which thisgovernment manages not only its forestry leases but also its national parks. As previously stated in theHouse, the management of feral animals, wild dogs, pigs et cetera in the forestry areas and nationalparks is an absolute disgrace. When you look at the wild fauna and the exotic fauna that is emanatingfrom national parks such as giant rat’s tail and lantana and all of those pests intruding on to private landwith little maintenance by the staff of the Queensland government, you really have to wonder where themanagement role of the Queensland government is in all of this.

The legislation has impacts in terms of DOGITs, and that is really a step forward for the Aboriginaland Islander communities, and that is very positive I believe. However, it does not detract from a lot ofthe negatives contained in this legislation.


In terms of ambulatory boundaries, obviously any electorate that is on coastal land or on a coastalplain will find that its boundaries that are bounded by the middle of a stream, low bank or high bank canchange dramatically. Over the last few weeks obviously in North Queensland a lot of those boundarieshave changed quite dramatically. However, I am not quite certain that giving the discretion to theminister is the right way of doing it. I would be the first to admit that there are problems there, but I amnot sure whether departmental staff under the discretion of the minister are the right people to bemaking those decisions.

Even though there are some areas in the bill that I can support, there are other areas that totallyoverride any consideration of support for the bill. I support the shadow minister in opposing this bill.

Mrs SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (9.38 pm): In rising to participate in the debate on theNatural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 introduced into this House earlier thisyear, I would like to concentrate my remarks on non-tidal watercourses in terms of managementjurisdiction and property boundaries. But first I will give some background to the current legislation.

The Water Act 2000 provides a definition of watercourse which includes bed, banks and otherelements of a river, creek or stream that confine or contain water. The Water Act also defines bed andbanks to be land over which water normally flows excluding adjacent land that would be covered duringa flood. The act also states that the bed and banks of a watercourse forming the boundary of a lot arethe property of the state.

There are two issues that prompted the need to change the Water Act. Firstly, variousinterpretations of the phrase ‘bed and banks’ has created uncertainty about the extent of the state’sjurisdiction in relation to watercourses. Secondly, there was some uncertainty for landholders as towhether the surveyed ambulatory boundary of their lot accurately depicted their land and that owned bythe state. That uncertainty about the extent of the state’s jurisdiction in a watercourse has resulted inconfusion and sometimes disputes. For example, people wishing to undertake activities in or near awatercourse were unsure if they were required to obtain resource allocations, say, for quarry materialsor a riverine protection permit. In some cases, the issue of jurisdiction was taken to the courts forresolution.

To clarify the land in a watercourse over which the Water Act applies, the act is being changed tobetter define the term ‘watercourse’. The new definition will state that a watercourse extends to its outerbanks. The outer banks are defined as the point where the stream channel intersects with any adjacentflood plain or valley margin. The changes will also clarify that a watercourse includes sandbars, in-stream islands and benches. The specific inclusion of sandbars, in-stream islands and benches willreinforce that a watercourse is more than the low-flow channel on the bed.

Clarifying that the watercourse is the land between the outer banks and providing diagrams inregulations will remove confusion about to which bank the watercourse extends. Also, defining awatercourse by reference to flood plains and valley margins will help people to see them in a largerlandscape context. Appropriate and equitable transitional arrangements are also provided by the bill sothat, for any activities in a watercourse that may be affected by the clarified definitions, people will havesix months to apply for the necessary resource allocations and permits, if not already held.

Providing greater certainty will save significant time and resources for the community and thegovernment in the future by, firstly, reducing the risk of an authorised water extraction and activitiesoccurring in the watercourses due to uncertainty about the need for resource allocations and riverineprotection permits; secondly, reducing the potential impact on the rights of other resource users and onresource conditions, including ecosystem health, which can arise from unauthorised water extractionand activities; and, thirdly, reducing disputes and therefore reducing the need for people to seek courtrulings to determine the jurisdictional boundary of a watercourse.

To separate tenure issues from the state’s jurisdiction, the provisions deeming land within aboundary watercourse to be the property of the state will be moved from the Water Act to the Land Act.The Survey and Mapping Infrastructure Act is being amended to provide clear criteria for identifying asuitable physical feature within a watercourse to be the ambulatory boundary of a lot. The bill alsorecognises existing ambulatory boundary surveys regardless of what feature was used for them.

In the past, cadastral surveyors have adopted a relatively narrow interpretation of bed and banks,which has resulted in some lots having their ambulatory boundary inside the watercourse. However,there have been disputes as to whether such a survey plan was accurate or had incorporatedwatercourse land which was, in fact, the property of the state. For quarry operators, that meant that theywere unsure if they had to pay royalties to the state for material taken from part of the lot. Forlandholders, they were unsure if they had the right of exclusion for quarry operations, or for their landbeing ponded by another person’s weir. By providing clearer criteria for the selection of a physicalfeature within a watercourse to be the basis of an ambulatory boundary, there will be greater certaintythat the boundary as surveyed and mapped is representative of the lot.


Although the criteria are different from those used in the selection of tidal boundaries, the sameapplies. Formally recognising existing boundaries will provide security for existing landholders andthose boundaries will remain until they are resurveyed. Resurvey will generally occur only if thelandholder chooses to reconfigure the land parcel. Irrespective of any change in the boundary, thelandholder continues to enjoy riparian rights over the state land in the watercourse. Those rights includethe near-exclusive use of the land and waters for stock and domestic purposes and will allow thelandholder to exclude trespassers.

By separating the tenure and jurisdiction issues, any confusion about the state’s power toregulate activity within watercourses and the person’s ownership of land adjoining boundarywatercourses is removed. Providing greater certainty to landholders, developers, surveyors, consultantsand even local governments, state agencies and the courts will save significant time and resources inthe future.

This is a significant bill as it will consign to history the uncertainty that has plagued boundary andjurisdictional issues in watercourses since 1910, when land boundaries were moved from being to thecentre of the watercourse. Moving away from a flow based definition of bed and banks to a physicalfeature based definition will remove the significant effort and cost of having to undertake hydrologicstudies each time to determine the normal flow and hydraulic studies to determine the lateral extents ofthat theoretical flow. I commend the bill to the House.

Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (9.44 pm): In rising to participate in the debate on theNatural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010, I would like to address the reasons weare introducing a new tidal ambulatory boundary scheme and its features. Some six years ago it cameto the attention of the government that some landowners whose land adjoined Queensland’s beacheswere resurveying their properties to include significantly more land, including what most of us wouldconsider to be public beach, into their properties. The law at the time actually allowed this to happen,even though it had not been normal practice in the past. In the past, surveyors would often survey theboundary of land adjoining beaches or other tidal land to the edge of the usable land, usually signifiedby a natural feature, such as the toe of a stable dune. This natural feature was readily surveyed, easilyunderstood by the landowner and people generally accepted that that was where their properties endedand the public beach began.

In November 2005, the government amended the Land Title Act 1994 and the Land Act 1994 toplace a temporary stay on the registration of survey plans with these tidal boundaries so that it coulddevelop a long-term solution to the concern about landowners taking beach land into private ownership.The practice of resurveying and incorporating extra land into survey plans began in earnest after a HighCourt decision in 1999, which, in essence, determined that land with an ambulatory boundary boundedby the high-water mark could be represented by the mean high-water springs. For some properties, thatmeant that the new survey plan now showed a significantly greater land area than the original survey. Insome cases, the boundaries of the lot had been extended to include what most of us would consider tobe public beaches and foreshores.

An ambulatory boundary is where a body of water, sea or river defines a boundary of land.Ambulatory boundaries are identified on a deed of grant or survey plan for referencing a body of waterthat adjoins a parcel of land. For example, the ambulatory boundary may be identified by makingreference to the left bank of the Maroochy River or the Coral Sea. The location of an ambulatoryboundary may shift through gradual and imperceptible movement, also known as erosion and accretion.Under the amendments in this bill, the location of the tidal ambulatory boundary will be the naturalfeature as located on a landowner’s current survey plan. This recognises the past common practice ofsurveyors in identifying these boundaries and generally locates the boundary of the land at the placewhere a landowner looking at their survey plan would expect it to be. A natural feature in the tidalcontext may include the landward edge of mangroves, the seaward edge of a grassy dune or even thestable toe of a dune.

The ambulatory boundary provisions in this bill do not change the common law in relation toambulatory boundaries, which is that ambulatory boundaries shift over time by gradual andimperceptible degrees—that is erosion and accretion—and that ambulatory boundaries affected by asudden change from a flood, storm or human intervention will not shift from where they were prior to thesudden change event.

Under the new scheme proposed by the bill, if it is not possible to determine from an earlier planof survey which natural feature was used to survey the boundary, the surveyor must use specified tidalboundary location criteria to identify the most appropriate natural feature. Under these criteria, thisnatural feature must be in a position that achieves stability and sustainability and is consistent with thepublic interest. To determine the location of a tidal ambulatory boundary, certain criteria must be met. Itmust not be subject to tidal inundation under any combination of astronomical conditions and averagemeteorological conditions; be located on the landward side of any sandy beaches, foredunes,mangroves, seagrass, intertidal flats et cetera; be consistent with the public interest; be in a stable

23 Mar 2010 Adjournment 1017

location and not require construction to keep it safe from inundation or obliteration; and be the naturalfeature unless there is no feature in reasonable proximity. If the location is unstable or a natural featurecannot be located then the tidal boundary must be on the landward side of any sandy beach or duneand any active erosion areas with no natural vegetation. These criteria are essentially consistent withthe way in which tidal ambulatory boundaries were considered for registration under the provisions ofthe stay.

For many difficult places, including those where the land has been substantially modified, thechief executive may declare the location of the boundary. Before making a declaration decision, thechief executive must ensure that the proposed boundary satisfies the first three tidal boundary locationcriteria and must take reasonable steps to consult with all registered owners or lessees of the land. Adeclaration decision is subject to internal review and appeal. The new survey definitions will retain thebeach in public ownership and ensure there is much greater clarity in determining the location of a tidalboundary of land. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mrs Attwood, adjourned.

ADJOURNMENTHon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (9.52 pm): I move—

That the House do now adjourn.

Violence Against PoliceMr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—LNP) (9.52 pm): In the early hours of last Saturday morning two

police officers were seriously assaulted in Innisfail by two men and a woman who have subsequentlybeen charged with a variety of offences, including numerous counts of serious assault and grievousbodily harm. One of the police officers was knocked unconscious and suffered a broken jaw andunderwent surgery yesterday, while his colleague has suffered swelling and bruising to his head andribs.

These assaults are totally unacceptable and I offer my support to the two police officers involvedand their families on behalf of the local community which I believe is equally shocked and alarmed thatyet another act of violence has been directed towards police officers in the district. It saddens me thatthis has occurred in a community that I represent. I am absolutely appalled by these assaults. I will notsit back and watch this sort of violence occur without addressing the issue. Ordinarily an incident likethis would be considered out of character for communities in the Cassowary Coast region. However,along with the assault on a police officer that occurred in November 2009 at Mission Beach, the assaultson these two police officers on the weekend are signs that this is changing.

Mr SPEAKER: Member for Hinchinbrook, just be careful. If this has to go to court you might usethe words ‘alleged assault’.

Mr CRIPPS: Certainly, Mr Speaker. Unfortunately, the larger provincial cities in the region—Cairns and Townsville—have a history of violence and are known to be hotspots for violence againstpolice. Police really fulfil a challenging public service role for the benefit and safety of the community. Anassault on a police officer in the course of doing their duty is totally unacceptable. It shows a lack ofrespect for the law in our community.

Police officers do their job in very demanding situations. We ask our police to deal with some ofthe most violent and dangerous people in our community and enforce the law on our behalf. If the law isto be respected, the people with the responsibility of enforcing the law should also be respected. Failureto do so should have serious consequences. A clear message needs to be sent that this behaviour willnot be tolerated.

This morning the minister for police had an opportunity to make a ministerial statement about theissue but he failed to do so even in these extraordinary circumstances where an officer has allegedlybeen assaulted to the point where they have had their jaw broken and have had to undergo surgery.This issue cannot be ignored by the police minister and the government.

The LNP opposition previously introduced a private member’s bill into the Queensland parliamentto provide for mandatory sentences of at least three months jail for anyone convicted of an assaultagainst a police officer in Queensland. The coalition government in Western Australia has introducedmandatory sentences for people who assault police officers. That has sent a clear message to would-beoffenders. Once again the LNP has introduced a private member’s bill into the parliament to provide formandatory sentences against police. The LNP is really giving the state Labor government a secondchance to support police officers and to put petty political differences aside and send a message to thecommunity that this behaviour is unacceptable. The police officers in our community deserve oursupport.

1018 Adjournment 23 Mar 2010

Blake, Mrs BMs MALE (Pine Rivers—ALP) (9.54 pm): I rise today to speak on the sad passing of a leader in

the Pine Rivers community, Mrs Betty Blake. While I did not have the honour of personally knowingBetty Blake, I would like to acknowledge the great legacy that she has left behind in Pine Rivers. Bettymoved to the Pine Rivers area in 1987 to enjoy a quiet and peaceful retirement with her husband, TomBlake. At this time, the Pine Rivers Neighbourhood Centre was being established and Betty offered herassistance to the project. A founding member of the centre, Betty also established the communityinformation and referral service and used her skills as a former legal secretary in New South Wales towrite funding submissions for the centre. Betty also oversaw many activities and was secretary to themanagement committee.

In 1994 Betty succeeded in one of her biggest achievements: she led a successful campaign toraise money for a new building at the centre which was desperately needed for its growing services.This building is named in her honour, recognising her commitment to the community, and is now knownas the Betty Blake Building. In 2003 Betty also became the first life member of the Pine RiversNeighbourhood Association in recognition of her work within the association.

In 1995 Betty was also recognised for the assistance that she provided to people in need byreceiving a Premier’s Award Certificate of Achievement. In 1996 Betty, along with David Horstmann,current president of Youth Care Pine Rivers, and Pat Matthews, a community health nurse, developedthe Dad’s Caring for Kids program, which has been run at the Pine Rivers Community Health Centre forthe past 14 years. This service was established to help the increasing number of fathers who came intothe neighbourhood centre. This course was so successful that it won the exalted Adult LearnersOutstanding Program 1998.

Betty was also president of Youth Care Pine Rivers, an organisation that conducts vital work inhelping young homeless people in crisis. Betty was a founding member of the steering committee andhad been a member of the management committee since 1988. Betty’s commitment to Youth Care PineRivers was officially recognised in 2000 when she was made a life member.

Betty Blake’s funeral was attended by many local residents who wanted to take the opportunity ofhonouring Betty’s great work and remembering a wonderful and caring person. I spoke with FionaMcNamara, a volunteer of the Pine Rivers Neighbourhood Centre executive. Fiona has said that Bettywas a person who was renowned for her tireless work for those less fortunate than herself. Fiona hopesother people follow Betty’s lead and show the same dedication to our community. David Horstmann saidat the funeral that he was filled with pride to be able to say that he was richer for the experience ofknowing and working with Betty.

I believe that it is important to acknowledge Betty Blake’s commitment to the welfare of othersover such a long period of time and to show appreciation for her involvement in the creation of twoimportant organisations in the Pine Rivers community. It is clear from her great work that Betty will begreatly missed by everyone in the Pine Rivers community.

Coomera Electorate, School LeadersMr CRANDON (Coomera—LNP) (9.57 pm): I must say that our future certainly appears to be in

good hands. That is the only conclusion I can come to when I consider what I have witnessed over thepast few weeks. I have had the pleasure of attending a number of leadership assemblies across theCoomera electorate and what a pleasure it has been. As a new member I was quite chuffed that schoolssuch as Eagleby State School and Coomera Primary School invited me to address the parents, teachersand, most importantly, the children to share with them my thoughts on leadership and what it meanswinning office and the responsibility taking office brings with it. I also shared with them my thoughts oncompeting for a role and how important it is to throw your hat into the ring, step up to the plate andpresent yourself for consideration.

We in this House all know what these young people—the winners and those who wereunsuccessful—have been through. In their young lives they have now experienced what competing for aleadership position means and they should all feel proud for trying. They are all winners. They should allbe encouraged, whether they were successful this time or not, to try again. Just last week I attended afunction and was invited to share a meal with the dux of the newest school in my electorate, togetherwith 10 others who were the dux of their respective schools in 2009. Samantha Atkinson was the 2009year 9 dux of Ormeau Woods State High School, which, as a new school, had years 8 and 9 studentsonly. I congratulate Samantha on her success in 2009 and wish her well in her future endeavours.

I also enjoyed some time at a Girl Guides weekend and discovered the commitment that the girlsand their leaders have. It was a very windy weekend and there were some challenges for them. Finally,I must report on the Lions Youth of the Year Quest. What a wonderful experience. The zone judging thatI was able to attend had four wonderful speakers, young people from four local schools. Jessica Boyce


from Beenleigh State High School; Rhiannon Davies from Tamborine Mountain State High School;Adam Price from St Stephens College at Upper Coomera; and Caitlin Usher from AB Patterson Collegewere our speakers and they all did a magnificent job.

Their speeches were about issues troubling modern society. Among other things, they talkedabout drug addiction and mental health issues, which are two issues that I am passionate about. I spokeabout those issues in my maiden speech in this place. There is no doubt that those two matters arelinked. It is comforting to know that our young people are aware of the issues and are calling for action.For example, in her speech on mental health issues, Caitlin Usher stated—

A crisis is facing Australia, an issue so widely spread that it will affect every one of us in some way.

Caitlin went on to say—In Brisbane, statistics show that approximately 119 teenagers commit suicide each year ... Suicide is often a result of depression,lack of self esteem, of failure to see a better future. Drugs and alcohol are also an increasingly contributing factor that has onlyrecently been seriously addressed by government.

Her closing remarks were a call to action. She said—... mental health of Australians is at crisis point, and we as a community are suffering. Education needs to be supported ... by theimmediate commitment of appropriate resources.

Caitlin finished with a quote from—(Time expired)

Aged CareMrs SMITH (Burleigh—ALP) (10.00 pm): This is not the first time I have spoken about the care of

our elderly relatives and friends in aged-care facilities. Many older people find that living at homebecomes more difficult for a variety of reasons. It may be that an admission to hospital is the catalyst forleaving home. In June 2009 there were 336 older people in public hospitals who no longer had a clinicalneed to be there. We need to ensure that when they no longer require hospital services they can receivethe services and care that they need in the most appropriate setting.

Making the decision to move a loved one into residential aged care can be very distressing andeven more so for the person giving up his or her home and, in some cases, they believe, their freedom.The Commonwealth Treasury’s Intergenerational Report 2010 tells us that by 2050 the number ofpeople aged 65 to 84 years will more than double. This means that increasing numbers of Australianswill be looking for residential aged-care accommodation.

Often it is only when we have personal exposure to a situation that we become aware of theneeds and, in this case, the lack of appropriate facilities. When older people access residential agedcare and appropriate nursing care, they need to feel safe, secure and well cared for. I have seenincidents of neglect that would make you cry, such as older people with few visitors who may havedementia and clearly have no idea where they are. They are dependent on the staff to care for them—not just meet their day-to-day needs, but care. Everyone wants to feel loved and cared for.

It is clear to me that aged-care facilities are generally understaffed. Unlike child-care facilities,where there is a legislated ratio of staff to children, there is no requirement on owners of these facilitiesto meet a level of staffing. One nurse and one assistant working overnight is often the norm. This is notfair on the staff or the residents. I have written to the federal government asking that this matter bereviewed for the benefit of all those concerned.

I believe that nursing is a vocation and not just a job. Those who choose the profession do sobecause they want to ensure that those they nurse receive the best care. However, wages for nursesworking in the aged-care sector are significantly below those in other areas. This makes it difficult forfacilities to keep good staff. It is time these nurses were paid for their qualifications and experience atthe rate of their counterparts in public hospitals.

I applaud the current focus on aged-care facilities and the treatment of residents, and believe onlygood can come out of this discussion. Those in care deserve much better. My mother has recently takenup residence in a brand-new facility on the Gold Coast. It is beautifully furnished and the staff are veryfriendly and helpful, but it is more important to me that she is treated with dignity and respect. So far, sogood.

Russell and Macleay IslandsMr DOWLING (Redlands—LNP) (10.03 pm): Tonight I rise to extend an invitation to all members

of the House to a public meeting to be held on the weekend on Russell and Macleay islands. Onemeeting will be held in the morning and one in the afternoon. I also extend that invitation to the Ministerfor Infrastructure and Planning, who I know has visited the islands on numerous occasions. A series ofmeetings have been held on the islands by various groups. I think the minister would find thosemeetings most productive as the islanders will raise the issues that they have and the challenges thatthey face with council.


The council has organised a planning instrument. It has conducted a study and is continuing toprepare reports on an integrated transport management system. Of all of the issues, the one that itkeeps dancing around—the elephant in the room, as it were—is centred on the parking issue. All of theplanning schemes that have been put together and all of the planning instruments that have been used,including the Redland Bay Centre Foreshore Master Plan, have failed to pick up on the parkingrequirements.

We have a conflict about whether Weinam Creek at Redland Bay is a transport terminal or aforeshore playground. Every time the community comes together, they confront the council and raiseissues. I know that they have made a number of submissions to the Minister for Infrastructure andPlanning, the Minister for Local Government and the Premier. There is no seamless transportinterchange at that location, because the TransLink system has not been rolled out to the island ferries.There is not a seamless transport hub or sufficient parking. At the moment, numbers suggest that 1,700car-parking spaces are required, yet council has made provision for only 1,159. In summary, the mostrecent report that has been presented to the community states that there are no allocated spaces, thereis no guarantee of long-term or permanent parking, there are insufficient numbers of free parking spacesand there is not enough space, full stop. Also, there is no scope for an adjustment to the number ofspaces if the council’s estimates are wrong. The targets that have been set appear to be about 46 percent of what is required.

Currently on the islands there are between 5,500 and 8,000 people—no-one can nail down anexact figure—yet the proposed growth on the islands seems to be somewhere in the order of 20,000 to25,000, depending on whether you take the bottom of the range or the top of the range. Clearly, there isinsufficient planning to cope with that. The state government needs to step up and be involved in theprocess. It must not allow council to carry the can on its own. I understand that it is working in theinterests of the community, but in this case it has not picked it up.

(Time expired)

Gold Coast, Boating and Fisheries Patrol

Ms CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (10.06 pm): I take this opportunity to mention the good workbeing done by field officers of the Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol on the Gold Coast. Thereare 11 staff based at the Gold Coast station and they do a fantastic job in educating the public andenforcing fishing regulations. Staff from this region patrol the waterways from the Queensland-NewSouth Wales border to Logan River and west to Moogerah and Maroon dams. Maroon and Moogerahdams are very popular freshwater fishing destinations, particularly given the recent rains. Fishers shouldbe aware of the requirement to hold a stocked impoundment permit if line fishing in those dams.

Between 1 July 2009 and 28 February 2010, 137 fisheries infringement notices have been issuedon the Gold Coast. The main offences include exceeding fish possession limits, taking female crabs andfailing to mark crab apparatus properly. To give an example, a recreational fisher with more than 20tailor may receive an infringement notice. Of note was the recent successful prosecution of tworecreational fishers who were fined $12,500 each. The fishers were found with 59 undersize and 13female mud crabs. In addition, they forfeited their boat because of the seriousness of their actions. Thecourts recognised that such flagrant disregard for the rules can have devastating consequences forQueensland’s marine resources. I suggest to everyone who wants to go fishing that they pick up a copyof the latest fishing rules, to make sure they do not do anything wrong.

Field officers enforce and educate boating safety matters on behalf of Maritime SafetyQueensland. For example, officers check our boat licences, registration, safety equipment andadherence to speed limits. Particular attention is also given to jet ski operators in close proximity to otherwaterway users. Between 1 July 2009 and 28 February 2010, 309 marine infringement notices havebeen issued on the Gold Coast, with the main offences being deficiencies with safety gear, exceedingspeed limits, operating boats without a licence and unregistered vessels.

Nine officers from the Gold Coast station are part of the Marine Animal Response Team. In 2009,those officers participated in the successful release of six whales from shark control equipment on theGold Coast. I understand that the Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol is currently trainingadditional staff for the forthcoming 2010 season.

Easter is characterised by waterways congested with competing users, including recreationalfishers, jet skiers, sailboarders and pleasure boaters. This is bound to be a hectic time for the officers.I am confident that they will continue to do an outstanding job in protecting one of Queensland’s mostvaluable assets and ensuring public safety on the water. I ask for people to show common sense andcourtesy while enjoying the magnificent waterways of the Gold Coast.


Bald Hills, Crime StoppersMs DAVIS (Aspley—LNP) (10.09 pm): Crime prevention is everyone’s business and needs to be

coordinated and supported at all levels of government with strong community involvement to reducecrime. I am of the opinion that police partnerships with local communities and other departments are thekey to tackling crime at its cause and that local residents of our suburbs can tangibly contribute to thereduction of crime in their local areas.

That is why I believe that the northern suburbs community will be very pleased to welcome CrimeStoppers Queensland to the Aspley electorate, where the organisation’s state office will operate out ofwhat was the abandoned police beat at Bald Hills. Whilst disappointed that the minister thought itappropriate not to advise the community once negotiations were complete, I am nevertheless delightedthat state coordinator Trevor O’Hara and his team will be located on this unused site.

Residents in Bald Hills were extremely disappointed to lose their police beat—a 2004 ALPelection promise, delivered just in time for the 2006 election and empty just prior to the 2009 stateelection. There was a great deal of community angst regarding the future use of the site as it wasunmanned, looked dishevelled and therefore, in the opinion of many in the area, sent a message thatthere were no police at home. Having made many representations on behalf of the Bald Hills communityregarding the future use of the building, I welcome the news that this site will no longer be abandoned.

Crime Stoppers Queensland is a conduit for members of the community to provide anonymousinformation about criminal activity. This information is electronically sent to the police establishmentnearest to where the crime is occurring for investigation by the QPS. Importantly, callers need not givetheir name when reporting a potential crime as in many cases anonymity is very important to overcomeany fear of involvement or retaliation.

Over the years, in fact since its establishment in 1989, Crime Stoppers Queensland, by working inpartnership with local informants, has achieved some remarkable results, including over 16,500offenders being arrested, with some 44,000 charges laid; solving 17 murders and 17 attemptedmurders; seizing over $557 million worth of drugs; recovering $8.9 million worth of stolen property; andseizing over $1.8 million in proceeds of crime.

All of this cannot be achieved without the support of a strong organisation and a dedicated teamof volunteers, and it is important to point out that Crime Stoppers Queensland is a non-profit communityorganisation supported by around 340 volunteers that make up area committees across the state. Iencourage any member of our community to contact Crime Stoppers should they have any informationabout criminal activity, past or present, and I wish the organisation all the very best in their futureactivities.

Savannah GuidesMr WETTENHALL (Barron River—ALP) (10.12 pm): Savannah Guides is a network of

professional tour guides with a collective knowledge of the natural and cultural assets of the tropicalsavannahs of Northern Australia, from Cairns to Broome. Queensland members include UndaraExperience, Cobbold Gorge Tours, Wilderness Challenge, Outback Aussie Tours, Adel’s Grove,Bedrock Village Tours, QR Traveltrain and Oz Tours Safaris.

Last week I had the great pleasure to attend and welcome a group of Savannah Guides atUndara Experience on the occasion of one their regular training schools. The founders of UndaraExperience—the Collins family—have had a long association with the guides, and 2010 is Undara’s20th year of operation as a tourism icon—an impressive milestone. Training schools are conductedeach year and feature experts in related fields including ecology, land management and tourism. I wasparticularly pleased that a number of officers from the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service attendedthe school and indeed were present to formally recognise the signing of a memorandum ofunderstanding between the Department of Environment and Resource Management and SavannahGuides.

The guides were established as a non-profit company in 1988 through the vision of JohnCourtenay at a time when the concept of ecotourism was in its infancy. Its original purpose was toprovide access for tourists to unique natural features on private, leased or public property and in amanner which protected the region’s natural and cultural assets. Savannah Guides sites and stationshave been developed by privately and publicly owned enterprises and feature nature and/or culturebased interpretive activities, while mobile guides conduct tours throughout the region.

All Savannah Guides enterprises must incorporate natural or cultural interpretive activities as acentral part of their business and show a commitment to conservation values. Members must meet strictstandards of operation and abide by professional codes of conduct, ensuring a high-quality tourismproduct available across Northern Australia.


Amongst its many international, national and state awards, Savannah Guides was the winner ofthe Queensland Tourism Awards for industry training in the private sector and the Tropical NorthQueensland Tourism Awards 2007. Tourism Queensland sponsors the guides under ‘Friends ofSavannah Guides’ arrangements and is also providing funding to help the Savannah Way withproduction of its regional travel guide, which helps operators connect with visitors.

Tourism Queensland is also working with Savannah Way Ltd and regional tourism organisationsto promote drive tourism in this part of the world. I commend the founders of Savannah Guides and allthe members past and present who have done so much to preserve and share the treasures of thesavannah region of Northern Australia.

Burrum HeadsMr FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (10.15 pm): I rise to bring to the attention of members of the

House one of the absolute jewels in the crown of the Fraser Coast, and I refer to Burrum Heads. I havebeen doing a lot of work on the boat ramp situation there, and there are some very pressing needs in thecommunity. Burrum Heads is a fantastic place. They have the Burrum Heads Easter Fishing Classic.That can see 2,000 boats come into the area. Frankly, the current ramps are just unsustainable in termsof being able to cope not only with that traffic but also with the regular traffic, as it is such a pristinefishing spot and a beautiful and popular area.

The Ross Street boat ramp in particular has no parking other than on the street. It does not havea car park. It is a very dangerous ramp in that it backs into a very fast-flowing stream. The constanterosion has ended up scouring out the bottom of the ramp so that basically at low tide once someonedrops the wheels of the trailer over the ramp it becomes a very dangerous situation.

A number of my constituents have complained to me that they have seen elderly peopleswimming with the boats whilst the other person who was perhaps boating goes and gets the vehicle.There is nowhere at all to beach those particular boats and nose them in whilst retrieving the trailer andthe car. That is a major issue. The Burrum Street boat ramp equally is very exposed to the sorts of windsthat are particularly dangerous when you are trying to launch or retrieve a boat, especially in varioustidal conditions.

Today I met with Dr Glen Brown and Randall Hart from the Department of Environment andResource Management and also with Simon Munro from the office of Minister Jones. We had a veryproductive chat about the overall situation with ramps in Burrum Heads. Obviously the Fraser CoastRegional Council must take the role of the lead agency in doing that, but I would call on the stategovernment and the council to make sure they do whatever they need to do to expedite some saferamps being built in our region. We have met. We have looked at all sorts of different sites. Just when ithas almost been nailed down on a number of occasions, negotiations have fallen over for one reason oranother. We even had Julie Bishop, the federal Liberal member, come up to Burrum Heads and have alook at the ramp when she was in our area on the weekend to celebrate Warren Truss’s 20 years inparliament.

(Time expired)

Carina Meals on WheelsMr KILBURN (Chatsworth—ALP) (10.18 pm): I would like to inform the House that early this year

the Carina Meals on Wheels was broken into and robbed. Ms Palaszczuk: Shame.Mr KILBURN: It is shameful. Thieves cut the wires to the security system and used crowbars to

jemmy open the security door. They stole approximately $800. This is an extremely low act. How lowcan you go, stealing from Meals on Wheels? But what I really want to talk about is the wonderfulcommunity response to this terrible incident.

Once I found out about this break-in I contacted the local paper, the South-East Advertiser, andinformed the public that I would be holding a fundraising sausage sizzle at the Stanley Road shops. Thisevent took place last Saturday and, with the support of the local community, we raised $870 in a periodof four hours which will help the Carina Meals on Wheels recover from this terrible robbery.

Mr Shine: Well done.Mr KILBURN: It was very good. A number of local businesses offered to support this event. The

owners of the Stanley Road shops gave permission to hold the event. The local butcher, Michael Jamesfrom Carina North Discount Quality Meats, supplied hundreds of sausages free of charge. Carina Freshsupplied seven kilos of onions—already sliced, I am happy to say—and the Crusty Devil bakeryprovided the bread for the day.

23 Mar 2010 Attendance 1023

With the assistance of my wife, Nataleen, my electorate officer, Margaret, and a number ofvolunteers from the Carina Meals on Wheels, we had a great time cooking sausages and onions andraffling a bike that was kindly donated by the local federal member, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and asmoke alarm and extinguisher package donated by a local businessman Dennis Lothian, who heardabout the event and wanted to assist. As well as this fantastic community support on the day, a numberof residents also turned up after reading about this event in the local paper and gave cash and donatedequipment. One person donated a number of commercial quantity trolleys for the Meals on Wheels andsome stainless steel cooking equipment. I think they picked up a total of about $1,400 in donationswhich is a terrific result.

I do volunteer with Carina Meals on Wheels, and I know that there are a number of members onboth sides of this House who volunteer with their local Meals on Wheels. So I am sure that all membersunderstand the important role that Meals on Wheels plays in our community. It is much more thandelivering meals; it also provides a chance to talk and check up on the people who are using the service. As with all community organisations, Meals on Wheels is always looking for new volunteers to help withthe preparation and delivery of meals. I encourage residents in the Chatsworth electorate to volunteer ifthey have the time. To do that, they can find information on the Queensland Meals on Wheels website atwww.qmow.org.

Question put—That the House do now adjourn.Motion agreed to.The House adjourned at 10.20 pm.

ATTENDANCEAttwood, Bates, Bleijie, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Crandon, Cripps, Croft, Cunningham, Darling, Davis,

Dempsey, Dick, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Farmer, Finn, Flegg, Foley, Fraser,Gibson, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hobbs, Hoolihan, Hopper, Horan, Jarratt, Johnson, Johnstone, Jones, Keech,Kiernan, Kilburn, Knuth, Langbroek, Lawlor, Lucas, McArdle, McLindon, Male, Malone, Menkens,Messenger, Mickel, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nicholls, Nolan, O’Brien, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Powell,Pratt, Reeves, Roberts, Robertson, Robinson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Seeney, Shine, Simpson, Smith,Sorensen, Spence, Springborg, Stevens, Stone, Struthers, Stuckey, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace,Watt, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson